Criminal Defense of Immigrants

Chapter

§11.1 I. Introduction
§11.2 II. Summary: What Criminal Counsel Need to Know
§11.3 III. Effective Orders Vacating Conviction
§11.4 A. General Rule
§11.5 B. Full Faith and Credit
§11.6 C. Burden of Proof
§11.7 D. Increasing the Chances Immigration Authorities Will Respect the Order
§11.8 E. Jurisdiction to Vacate
§11.9 IV. Effective Orders Modifying Sentence
§11.10 A. Most Recent Sentence Governs
§11.11 B. New Definition of "Conviction"
§11.12 C. Reducing Sentence
§11.13 D. Reduction of Felony to Misdemeanor
§11.14 1. Immigration Consequences
§11.15 2. Procedure
§11.16 E. Reduction of Misdemeanor to Infraction
§11.17 V. Effective Rehabilitative Relief
§11.18 A. General Rule
§11.19 B. Federal First Offender Act Exception
§11.20 C. Ninth Circuit Exception for State and Foreign Rehabilitative Relief Analogous to FFOA
§11.21 D. Judicial Recommendation Against Deportation
§11.22 E. Pardon
§11.23 1. Determination of Whether a Pardon Exists
§11.24 2. Foreign Pardons
§11.25 VI. Procedure to Obtain Post-Conviction Relief
§11.26 A. Finding Post-Conviction Counsel
§11.27 B. Investigating the Case
§11.28 C. Developing a Strategy
§11.29 1. Adverse Consequences of Post-Conviction Relief
§11.30 2. Ex Post Facto Doctrine
§11.31 3. Conduct-Based Immigration Consequences
§11.32 D. Evaluating the Case
§11.33 1. Requirements for Successful Post-Conviction Relief
§11.34 a. Matching the Vehicle to the Immigration Effect
§11.35 b. Matching the Vehicle to the Ground of Legal Invalidity
§11.36 c. Choosing a Vehicle that Works
§11.37 d. Timing of Post-Conviction Relief
§11.38 2. Factors to Consider
§11.39 a. The Current Status of the Client
§11.40 i. The Client is Clean and Sober
§11.41 ii. The Client Has Strong Equities
§11.42 iii. The Client is Out of Custody
§11.43 iv. The Client Has No Outstanding or Potential Arrest Warrants
§11.44 v. The Client Has No Current Aggravated Re-entry Exposure
§11.45 vi. The Client is Lawfully Present
§11.46 b. The Criminal Situation
§11.47 i. A Small Criminal Case Has Large Immigration Effects
§11.48 ii. The Client Has Few Convictions
§11.49 iii. Number and Diversity of Original Charges
§11.50 iv. The Evidence of Guilt is Weak, or the Client Has a Plausible Claim of (at Least Partial) Innocence
§11.51 v. The Client Was Charged Jointly With 1 or More Codefendants
§11.52 vi. A Relatively Minor Change in Conviction or Sentence Will Solve the Immigration Problem
§11.53 vii. There is Small Risk the Client Will Receive Additional Time in Custody
§11.54 (a. Adverse Criminal Consequences
§11.55 (b. Adverse Immigration Consequences
§11.56 viii. The Jurisdiction Where the Conviction Occurred is Relatively Sympathetic
§11.57 ix. Incomplete Initial Defense Investigation
§11.58 x. Technical Problems with Prosecution Case
§11.59 c. Timing of the Case
§11.60 i. Federal Time Limits
§11.61 (a. Motion to Vacate Sentence Under § 2255
§11.62 (b. Coram Nobis Time Limits
§11.63 (c. Attacking State Convictions
§11.64 ii. Time Limits Within Which Actions for State Post-Conviction Relief Must be Filed
§11.65 d. The Client Has 6 Months or More Before Irrevocable Immigration Damage Occurs
§11.66 e. There is Still Time To Reopen the Immigration Case if Criminal Convictions Are Eliminated
§11.67 f. The Records Necessary to Establish Error in the Criminal Case Still Exist
§11.68 VII. Vacating Convictions
§11.69 A. Vehicles
§11.70 B. Grounds
§11.71 VIII. Modifying Sentences
§11.72 A. Vehicles
§11.73 B. Grounds
§11.74 IX. After Obtaining Post-Conviction Relief
§11.75 A. Defending the Criminal Case Again
§11.76 1. Some Safer Alternative Dispositions
§11.77 2. Plea Negotiations
§11.78 B. Documenting the Victory
§11.79 1. Obtaining Certified Copies
§11.80 2. Correcting Criminal History Records
§11.81 C. Reopening Removal Proceedings
§11.82 1. Before Deportation Has Occurred
§11.83 2. After Deportation Has Occurred
§11.84 3. Collateral Attack of Deportation Order Upon Prosecution for Illegal Re-entry
§11.85 X. Other Resources

§ 11.70 (A)

For more text, click "Next Page>"

(A) Validity of Conviction When the Court Fails to Advise Defendant Concerning Immigration Consequences. Unless state statutes provide otherwise, the court in which the conviction occurs is generally under no duty to advise the defendant as to the possibility of deportation.[345] (Some courts mistakenly hold that a defendant has no right to withdraw a plea of guilty on the basis of a claim s/he was not informed by defense counsel of the immigration consequences of the plea.[346]) A guilty plea has the effect of admitting the entire charge.[347]

[345] George v. Black, 732 F.2d 108 (8th Cir. 1984); United States v. Santelises, 476 F.2d 787 (2d Cir. 1973); Durante v. Holton, 228 F.2d 827 (7th Cir. 1956); Matter of Espinoza, 15 I. & N. Dec. 328 (BIA 1975); Matter of Rodriguez, 14 I. & N. Dec. 706 (BIA 1974); Matter of Fortis, 14 I. & N. Dec. 576 (BIA 1974) (defendant not denied due process when not informed of immigration consequences of guilty plea).

[346] E.g., United States v. Fry, 322 F.3d 1198 (9th Cir. Mar. 18, 2003) (defense counsel’s failure to advise a defendant of collateral immigration consequences of criminal conviction does not violate the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel). These cases do not undercut the argument that counsel’s mistaken advice, or affirmative misadvice, rather than a mere failure to advise, can constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. See In re Resendiz, 25 Cal.4th 230 (2001) (citing federal authorities). See also United States v. Sambro, 454 F.2d 918 (D.C. Cir. 1971) (withdrawal of plea held discretionary, court refused approval); Matter of Espinoza, 15 I. & N. Dec. 328 (BIA 1975). But see N. Tooby, California Post-Conviction Relief § § 7.15 ff. (2001).

[347] Matter of S, 9 I. & N. Dec. 688 (BIA 1962).