AILA Files Amicus Brief on Mandatory Detention Under INA 236(c), and the question of the meaning of when released.
http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=43177

Teague is a test that governs federal habeas petitions brought under 28 USC 2255. Padilla's case was decided on an appeal from the Kentucky Supreme Court, which is not governed by these statutes. Graham v. Collins, 506 U.S. 461, 505 (1993). Therefore, Teague should not govern state review of state convictions at all. See Danforth v. Minnesota, 552 U.S. 264, 273, 128 S.Ct. 1029, 169 L.Ed.2d 859 (2008). The states, however, are free to adopt the Teague rule if they wish.

Counsel can argue that Teague does not apply to first-time claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. In most direct appeals, the record is not sufficient to raise the issue "my attorney did not give me immigration advice" because that requires testimony outside the record on direct appeal. If the Teague rule applies to first-time IAC claims, it is impossible for any court ever to announce a new rule/new development in the area of IAC claims, as such a claim could not be raised on direct appeal, and would be barred by Teague in a post-conviction IAC claim.

Whether an administrative (as opposed to statutory or judicial) change in the law is subject to different rules regarding retroactive application. In general an administrative change in law is retroactive unless there is a burden on the applicant. Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, AFL"CIO v. NLRB, 466 F.2d 380 (D.C.Cir.1972), Miguel-Miguel v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 941, 950 (9th Cir. 2007); Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc. v. FTC, 691 F.2d 1322 (9th Cir.1982).
Thanks to Stacy Tolchin.

In Chaidez v. United States, ___ U.S.___, ___ S.Ct.___, 2013 WL 610201 (Feb. 20, 2013), the court stated:

All 10 federal appellate courts to consider the question decided, in the words of one, that counsel's failure to inform a defendant of the collateral consequences of a guilty plea is never a violation of the Sixth Amendment. Santos-Sanchez v.

In Chaidez v. United States, ___ U.S.___, ___ S.Ct.___, 2013 WL 610201 (Feb. 20, 2013), the court stated:

True enough, three federal circuits (and a handful of state courts) held before Padilla that misstatements about deportation could support an ineffective assistance claim. But those decisions reasoned only that a lawyer may not affirmatively misrepresent his expertise or otherwise actively mislead his client on any important matter, however related to a criminal prosecution. See, e.g., United States v. Kwan, 407 F.3d 1005, 1015"1017 (C.A.9 2005).

Christopher N. Lasch, How the Courts Upholding of Federal Immigration Enforcement Authority in Arizona v. United States Casts Doubt on the Validity of Federal Immigration Detainers, 46 Loyola Los Angeles L. Rev. --- (forthcoming 2013) (federal government lacks the authority to issue immigration detainers as it has being doing with great frequency in recent years).

First, Lasch argues, the regulation DHS relies on gives its agents more power to arrest than Congress authorized.

Chaidez v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 1103 (Feb. 20, 2013) (Padilla does not apply to convictions that were already final on March 31, 2010 under the retroactivity analysis in Teague).

Chaidez v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 1103 (Feb. 20, 2013) (court failed to reach arguments by Chaidez that Teague's bar on retroactivity does not apply when a petitioner challenges a federal conviction, or at least does not do so when she makes a claim of ineffective assistance, because she did not adequately raise them in the lower courts: [M]indful that we are a court of review, not of first view, the court declined to rule on Chaidez's new arguments); quoting Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 718, n. 7, 125 S.Ct. 2113, 161 L.Ed.2d 1020 (2005).

Chaidez v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 1103 (Feb. 20, 2013) (court failed to reach arguments by Chaidez that Teague's bar on retroactivity does not apply when a petitioner challenges a federal conviction, or at least does not do so when she makes a claim of ineffective assistance, because she did not adequately raise them in the lower courts: [M]indful that we are a court of review, not of first view, the court declined to rule on Chaidez's new arguments); quoting Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 718, n. 7, 125 S.Ct. 2113, 161 L.Ed.2d 1020 (2005).