The notion of court orders nunc pro tunc is a very vague equitable doctrine.  Even if counsel obtains a nunc pro tunc order in criminal court, there is no guarantee at all the immigration court will reach the criminal court’s conclusion that the order or plea was entered on the backdated date cf. United States v. Esparza.  The immigration courts generally follow federal immigration law on these questions, rather than the vagaries of the law of the 50 states, because of a desire for national uniformity. 

Which Version of Criminal Defense of Immigrants is right for me?

A plea to simple witness dissuasion, in violation of California Penal Code § 136.1(b), does not trigger deportation under any ground, at least if there is no sentence imposed of one year or more in custody, whether or not execution is suspended. See generally N. Tooby & J. Rollin, Safe Havens: How to Identify and Construct Non-Deportable Convictions (2005) (updated monthly on www.NortonTooby.com.

The Immigration Advocates Network (IAN) is excited to announce the launch of ImmigrationLawHelp.org (www.immigrationlawhelp.org), a new website to help low-income immigrants find free or low-cost legal help. The website provides information about more than 900 nonprofit immigration legal services providers in all 50 states.

United States v. McGowan, 668 F.3d 601 (9th Cir. Jan. 26, 2012) (To establish that his right to due process [at sentence] was violated, McGowan must show that the allegations were (1) false or unreliable, and (2) demonstrably made the basis for the sentence. . . . Challenged information is deemed false or unreliable if it lacks some minimal indicium of reliability beyond mere allegation.); citing United States v. Vanderwerfhorst, 576 F.3d 929, 935"36 (9th Cir.2009) (quoting United States v. Ibarra, 737 F.2d 825, 827 (9th Cir.1984); see United States v.

Garcia-Torres v. Holder, ___ F.3d ___ (9th Cir. 2012) (warrantless arrest does not constitute egregious Fourth Amendment violation sufficient to warrant suppression of evidence in removal proceedings); see Puc-Ruiz v. Holder, 629 F.3d 771 (8th Cir. 2010).

United States v. Melendez-Castro, ___ F.3d ___ (9th Cir. Jan. 18, 2012) (reversing illegal reentry conviction where underlying removal order was invalid, because (1) the defendant as a respondent in removal proceedings was not meaningfully advised of his right to seek voluntary departure, in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment; (2) the defendant's waiver of his right to appeal his removal order was not valid; and (3) the district court did not fully analyze the issue of prejudice, which must be shown for a successful collateral attack).