• Hours & Info

    (562) 495-0554
    M-F: 8:00am - 6:00 p.m.
    Sat: 9:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m.
  • Social

  • Past Blog Posts

Federal Court Requires Immigration Courts to Continue to Provide Bond Hearings Despite Matter of M‑S‑

In Padilla v. ICE, a district court judge issued a decision that requires immigration courts to continue to provide bond hearings to individuals fleeing persecution who enter the United States without inspection, are placed in expedited removal proceedings, and pass their credible fear interviews. The decision is set to take effect on July 16, 2019.

Got a crime?

The Tenth Circuit granted the petition for review, holding that the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision to retroactively apply Matter of Briones to the petitioner’s case found no support in the principles underlying the law of retroactivity, in U.S. Supreme Court or circuit precedent, or in relevant authority from other jurisdictions. The court further found that the petitioner’s reliance on the court’s 2005 decision in Padilla-Caldera v. Gonzales, which wasamended and superseded in 2006, was reasonable.

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel grounds to overturn conviction

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of a petition for a writ of error coram nobis, finding that the rule in United States v. Kwan—affirmative misrepresentations by defense counsel regarding immigration consequences of a conviction can constitute the basis for an ineffective assistance of counsel claim—survives Padilla v. Kentucky, is not controlled by Chaidez v. United States, and does not establish a new rule of criminal procedure. The court thus found that Kwan could be applied retroactively to support the petitioner’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim, and remanded for the district court to evaluate the merits of the petition.

Court Finds Judge’s Deportation Warning at Guilty Plea Proceeding Does Not Satisfy Padilla

The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court, holding that a judge’s statement at a guilty plea proceeding that deportation is “likely” does not foreclose a noncitizen defendant’s ability to demonstrate prejudice as a result of counsel’s failure to provide Padilla-required advice about the immigration consequences of the plea.

%d bloggers like this: