A U.S. Army veteran who completed three combat tours in Iraq is fighting to stay in the country he served after federal immigration authorities moved to deport him. The case has drawn sharp attention to the collision between military service and immigration law, raising uncomfortable questions about how the government treats noncitizens who wore the uniform.
Antonio Romo, 41, enlisted in the Army in 2002 and deployed to Iraq three times between 2003 and 2009, NBC News reported. He served as a combat engineer, earning multiple commendations during his years in the service. Romo was born in Mexico and brought to the United States as a child. He is a lawful permanent resident but never became a naturalized U.S. citizen.
That gap in his legal status is now the fulcrum of his case.
Romo pleaded guilty in 2019 to a felony drug charge in Texas, a conviction that made him removable under federal immigration law. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detained him in May 2025 after he checked in at a routine appointment with immigration officials. His attorney, Jennifer Correro, told NBC News that Romo had been complying with all check-in requirements and was not expecting to be taken into custody.
Correro said Romo's 2019 conviction involved possession of a controlled substance and that he has had no subsequent criminal issues. She argued that his military record and years of compliance should weigh heavily against removal. Federal immigration law, however, treats certain felony drug convictions as aggravated felonies for deportation purposes, a classification that sharply limits a noncitizen's ability to fight removal in immigration court.
ICE has not publicly commented on the specifics of Romo's detention or case posture. The agency's broader enforcement posture under the current administration has prioritized the removal of noncitizens with criminal records, a policy that has swept up individuals across a wide spectrum of offenses. Large-scale ICE operations targeting illegal aliens with criminal histories have accelerated across multiple states in recent months.
Federal law has long provided an expedited path to citizenship for noncitizens who serve in the U.S. military. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, service members who serve honorably during designated periods of hostility can apply for naturalization without meeting the usual residency requirements. The Iraq War qualifies as such a period.
Romo never filed for naturalization. His attorney told NBC News that Romo believed, as many service members do, that military service itself conferred citizenship or that the process would be handled by the military. That belief, while common, is incorrect. Naturalization requires a separate application, and the military does not file on behalf of its members.
The gap between eligibility and action has tripped up veterans before. Advocacy groups have documented cases of deported veterans in Mexico, Canada, and other countries who served honorably but never completed the citizenship process. Some were removed after criminal convictions; others after lapses in legal status they did not fully understand.
Romo's case sits at the intersection of those patterns. He had the legal right to seek citizenship. He did not exercise it. And his felony conviction now makes the path far steeper.
Correro said she plans to seek cancellation of removal, a form of relief available in immigration court when a lawful permanent resident can demonstrate long-term residence, good moral character, and that deportation would cause exceptional hardship to qualifying U.S. citizen or permanent resident relatives. Romo has U.S.-born children, a factor that could support the hardship argument.
The felony conviction complicates that strategy. If the immigration court classifies Romo's drug offense as an aggravated felony, he would be statutorily barred from cancellation of removal. The classification hinges on the specifics of the Texas statute under which he was convicted and how the immigration judge applies federal precedent to that state charge. That legal question, known as the categorical approach, often produces different outcomes depending on jurisdiction.
Correro told NBC News she also intends to raise Romo's military service as an equitable factor. Immigration judges have discretion to weigh service records, combat deployments, and service-connected conditions when considering relief. Romo's three combat tours and his commendations could carry weight in that analysis, though discretion cuts both ways.
The broader enforcement environment has shown little appetite for carve-outs. The current administration has maintained that criminal convictions trigger removal proceedings regardless of other factors, and ICE removals of convicted individuals have continued at a steady pace across the country.
Romo's family is bracing for the possibility that he could be sent to Mexico, a country he left as a young child. His children live in Texas. His attorney described the family as "devastated" by the detention and said Romo's mental health has suffered since he was taken into custody.
Correro told NBC News that Romo served his country "without hesitation" and that the government's decision to detain him after years of compliance felt like a betrayal of that service. She acknowledged his criminal record but argued that a single conviction should not erase a decade of military service in a combat zone.
"He went to war for this country three times. He did everything they asked him to do. And now they want to send him to a country he doesn't even remember."
That was Correro, speaking to NBC News about her client's situation.
Cases like Romo's expose a genuine tension in immigration enforcement. On one hand, the rule of law demands consistent application. A felony conviction carries immigration consequences under federal statute, and those consequences do not include a military-service exception. Congress has never enacted a blanket bar on deporting veterans, despite periodic legislative proposals to do so.
On the other hand, the equities are hard to ignore. A combat veteran who served three tours in Iraq occupies a different moral position than someone with no ties to the country. The failure to naturalize, while legally significant, often reflects confusion rather than defiance. The military's own recruiting materials have historically emphasized the path to citizenship without always clarifying that the path requires affirmative steps by the service member.
Immigration enforcement has become one of the most active areas of federal policy in 2025. Across the country, ICE has expanded operations targeting individuals with criminal records and outstanding removal orders. Some of those operations have drawn scrutiny for their scope. Others, including crackdowns on illegal immigrant truckers exploiting CDL loopholes, have highlighted gaps in the system that allowed dangerous individuals to operate unchecked for years.
Romo's case is different in kind. He is not an illegal alien. He is a lawful permanent resident with a criminal record, a decorated combat veteran, and a father of American children. His case will test whether the immigration system can distinguish between categories of removable noncitizens or whether the law's machinery grinds forward without regard to the uniform a man once wore.
Romo remains in ICE custody. His next hearing in immigration court has not been publicly scheduled. Correro said she is preparing filings that will include his full military record, evidence of his family ties, and documentation of his compliance with immigration check-ins prior to detention.
Veterans' advocacy organizations have begun monitoring the case, though none have formally intervened. The American Civil Liberties Union and several veterans' legal aid groups have previously represented deported veterans in similar circumstances, sometimes winning their return to the United States years after removal.
Enforcement actions against individuals with criminal records and federal removal orders have continued to generate controversy. In one recent case, a Haitian truck driver charged in a Pennsylvania trooper's death held a CDL that was renewed months after a federal removal order, underscoring the system's failure to track and act on existing orders.
Romo's situation is the inverse problem: a system that tracked him closely, required his compliance, received it, and then moved to remove him anyway.
Investigators and attorneys will need to determine whether Romo's Texas conviction qualifies as an aggravated felony under federal immigration law, a classification that could foreclose his strongest avenue of relief. That question may ultimately travel beyond the immigration court if either side appeals.
The law does not pause for service records. But a country that asks noncitizens to fight its wars owes them, at minimum, a system that accounts for what they gave.
