# OROBIO-ESTACIO v. ICE

> District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · October 7, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11159091

## Case

- **Full name:** Luis Angel Orobio-Estacio v. Michael Underwood, Warden, F.C.I. Loretto
- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** October 7, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11159091

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

LUIS ANGEL OROBIO-ESTACIO, :
Petitioner :
v. : Case No. 3:24-cv-107-SLH-KAP
MICHAEL UNDERWOOD, WARDEN, :
F.C.I. LORETTO, :
Respondent :

Memorandum Order

Petitioner Orobio-Estacio’s assumption that he can be denied credit under the
First Step Act only if he is subject to a final order of removal after judicial proceedings is
wrong. At 18 U.S.C.§ 3632(d)(4)(E)(i), the FSA makes an individual ineligible to have
earned time credit applied if he or she is the “subject of a final order of removal under any
provision of the immigration laws (as such term is defined in section 101(a)(17) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(17)).” (my emphasis). The Section
referred to, Section 101(a)(17), defines “immigration laws” as including “this chapter
[Title 8] and all laws, conventions, and treaties of the United States relating to the
immigration, exclusion, deportation, expulsion, or removal of aliens.” 8 U.S.C.§
1101(a)(17). Some of those provisions do not contemplate judicial proceedings. See e.g.
Barradas Jacome v. Att'y Gen. United States, 39 F.4th 111, 116–17 (3d Cir. 2022), cert.
denied sub nom. Barradas-Jacome v. Garland, 143 S. Ct. 2432, 216 L. Ed. 2d 415 (2023):
The INA declares that “[a]ny alien who is convicted of an aggravated felony
at any time after admission is deportable.” 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). Before an
alien can be deported on this ground, he generally must be afforded a hearing before
an IJ, where he may contest the factual or legal basis of his removability. See 8 U.S.C.
§§ 1229, 1229a; 8 C.F.R. § 1240.10(c). But for aliens like Barradas-Jacome who have
not been lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence, the INA
authorizes an expedited removal process without a hearing before an IJ. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1228(b); 8 C.F.R. § 238.1(a).
Some background relevant to petitioner’s entitlement to a judicial hearing and
therefore to Earned Time Credits under the FSA is found in the uncontested description
of the offense conduct in the government’s brief filed in the petitioner’s direct appeal from
his sentence. See Appellee’s Brief at 2018 WL 1790402, at *3–4, see United States v.
Estacio, No. 1:17-cr-20705-KMM-3 (S.D.Fla.), affirmed, United States v. Estacio, 746
Fed.Appx. 920 (11th Cir. 2018). It would appear that on August 30, 2017, a marine aircraft
on routine patrol spotted a boat in international waters south of Guatemala and notified
the United States Coast Guard Cutter JAMES, which moved to intercept the vessel and
dispatched a helicopter. The helicopter crew saw people jettisoning what appeared to be
1
bales, fired warning shots, and finally disabled the vessel. Orobio-Estacio was a crew
member on the boat, which had no indicia of nationality. The boarding team received
authorization to treat the vessel as a vessel without nationality and therefore subject to
the jurisdiction of the United States, and removed Orobio-Estacio, a Colombian national,
and two Ecuadoreans from the vessel. The twenty-nine jettisoned bales that were
recovered contained 580 kilograms of cocaine. On September 27, 2017, the Coast Guard
transferred custody of Orobio-Estacio and his codefendants to United States law
enforcement officers, who escorted them to South Florida and admitted him for purposes
of prosecution.
It would seem that petitioner is inadmissible, and pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)()
expedited orders of removal can be issued to inadmissible aliens. See Duyzings v. Warden,
FCI Fort Dix, 2024 WL 1406647, at *3 (D.N.J. Apr. 2, 2024). But it would simplify my
disposition of this matter if the respondent would produce what it considers the final
order of removability itself and not the notice of action referring to it. See Polanco v.
Jenkins, 2023 WL 4409120, at *1 (C.D. Cal. May 22, 2023), report and recommendation
adopted, 2023 WL 4406305 (C.D. Cal. July 6, 2023). The respondent is therefore ordered
to promptly file any order of removability that relates to the petitioner.
Ose
DATE: October 7, 2025
Keith A. Pesto,
United States Magistrate Judge
Notice by ECF to counsel and by U.S. Mail to:
Luis Angel Orobio-Estacio, Reg. No. 14997-104
F.C.I. Loretto
P.O. Box 1000
Cresson, PA 16630

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11159091. Public record. Not legal advice.