You are here: / Immigration Law
, ,

Defendant Entitled to a Hearing on His Motion to Vacate His Conviction/Defendant Alleged He Would Not Have Pled Guilty Absent His Attorney’s Affirmative Misinformation About the Deportation Consequences of the Plea

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Spain, determined defendant was entitled to a hearing on his motion to vacate his conviction based on the allegation defense counsel gave defendant affirmative misinformation about the deportation consequences of his guilty plea:

Defendant’s motion to vacate sufficiently raises a question as to whether trial counsel provided him with affirmative misinformation regarding the deportation consequences of his guilty plea and adequately alleges facts that, if credited, show a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s erroneous assurances in this regard, defendant would have insisted on going to trial … . Accordingly, defendant is entitled to a hearing on the issues raised in his CPL 440.10 (1) (h) motion and the order must, therefore, be reversed… . People v Diallo, 104609, 3rd Dept 12-19-13

 

 

, ,

Defendant Who Was Not Informed His Guilty Plea Would Result in Deportation Was Unable to Demonstrate He Was Prejudiced by the Omission

The Court of Appeals, over a dissent, affirmed defendant’s conviction, in spite of his counsel’s failure to inform him his guilty plea would result in deportation. The court determined that, under the specific facts of the case, there was no “reasonable probability” defendant would not have entered a guilty plea had he been informed of the mandatory deportation:

Under the State and Federal Constitutions, a defendant has the right to the effective assistance of counsel (see US Const, 6th Amend; NY Const, art I, § 6…).  Under the Federal Constitution, defense counsel is ineffective when his or her performance “f[a]ll[s] below an objective standard of reasonableness” under “prevailing professional norms” (Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668, 687-688 [1984]).  Even if counsel’s performance is deficient, however, the defendant’s conviction will not be reversed unless “there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different” (id. at 694-695).  In the plea context, the defendant “must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial” … .  Whether the defendant can show such a “reasonable probability” will often turn, as it does here, on credibility determinations which, if they have support in the record, we cannot review… . * * *

…[W]e conclude that there is support for the lower courts’ determination that defendant failed to show a reasonable probability that, if counsel had informed him that he was certain to be deported as a result of his guilty plea, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have gone to trial… .  People v Hernandez, 211, CtApp 11-19-13

 

, ,

Court’s Failure to Inform Defendant that Guilty Plea May Result in Deportation Violates Due Process/Vacation of Plea in Absence of Notification Not Automatic

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam (with concurring and dissenting opinions), the Court of Appeals determined that all non-citizen defendants who plead guilty to a felony are entitled, under the Due Process clause, to notification that the plea may result in deportation, but that a failure to so notify does not automatically require vacation of the plea:

We … hold that due process compels a trial court to apprise a defendant that, if the defendant is not an American citizen, he or she may be deported as a consequence of a guilty plea to a felony.   In reaching this conclusion, we overrule the limited portion of our decision in People v Ford (86 NY2d 397 [1995]) which held that a court’s failure to advise a defendant of potential deportation never affects the validity of the defendant’s plea.

[We] further hold that, in light of the Court’s conclusion that a trial court must notify a pleading non-citizen defendant of the possibility of deportation, the trial court’s failure to provide such advice does not entitle the defendant to automatic withdrawal or vacatur of the plea.  Rather, to overturn his or her conviction, the defendant must establish the existence of a reasonable probability that, had the court warned the defendant of the possibility of deportation, he or she would have rejected the plea and opted to go to trial… .  People v Peque, et seq, 163, 164, 165, CtApp 11-19-13

 

,

Child Qualified as “Special Immigrant;” Abandoned by One Parent

In reversing Family Court, the Second Department determined the subject child, Brenda, qualified as a “special immigrant” who could apply for lawful permanent residency in the US because she had been abandoned by one (not both) of her parents:

Pursuant to 8 USC § 1101(a)(27)(J) (as amended by the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, Pub L 110-457, 122 US Stat 5044) and 8 CFR 204.11, a “special immigrant” is a resident alien who, inter alia, is under 21 years of age, is unmarried, and has been legally committed to, or placed under the custody of, an individual appointed by a State or juvenile court. Additionally, for a juvenile to qualify for special immigrant juvenile status, a court must find that reunification of the juvenile with one or both of the juvenile’s parents is not viable due to parental abuse, neglect, abandonment, or a similar basis found under State law (see 8 USC § 1101[a][27][J][i]…), and that it would not be in the juvenile’s best interests to be returned to his or her native country or country of last habitual residence (see 8 USC § 1101[a][27][J][ii]; 8 CFR 204.11[c][6]…).

Brenda is under the age of 21 and unmarried. Inasmuch as the Family Court placed Brenda under her mother’s custody, Brenda has been “legally committed to, or placed under the custody of . . . an individual or entity appointed by a State or juvenile court” within the meaning of 8 USC § 1101(a)(27)(J)(i)…). Based upon our independent factual review, we find that the record, which includes a detailed affidavit from Brenda, fully supports Brenda’s contention that, because her father neglected and abandoned her, reunification with her father is not a viable option … . Contrary to the Family Court’s determination, the fact that Brenda’s mother did not also neglect and abandon her does not preclude the issuance of the order requested … . Lastly, the record reflects that it would not be in Brenda’s best interests to be returned to El Salvador… .  Matter of Maria PEA v Sergio AGG, 2013 NY Slip Op 07168, 2nd Dept 11-6-13

For a similar case with the same result, see Matter of Karen C, 2013 NY Slip Op 07170, 2nd Dept 11-6-13

, ,

Defense Counsel’s Statement Defendant “Most Likely” Would Not Be Deported Based on a Guilty Plea Did Not Amount to Ineffective Assistance

The Third Department determined that defense counsel’s statement that the defendant “most likely” would not be deported based on his guilty plea to a misdemeanor did not constitute ineffective assistance. Defendant had subsequently been detained by immigration officials for deportation:

…[D]efendant was required to establish both ‘that counsel’s performance was deficient’ and ‘that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense'” … .  Here, the record indeed makes clear that defendant was concerned about the possibility of being deported.  The record does not, however, establish that defendant was given erroneous advice regarding the potential immigration consequences associated with his guilty plea. People v Obeya, 105313, 3rd Dept 10-31-13

 

,

Special Immigrant Juvenile Law Triggered by Abuse, Neglect or Abandonment by One Parent (Not Both)

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Roman, the Second Department determined that in order to qualify for the special immigrant juvenile provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 USC 1101), which provides a gateway to permanent residency for undocumented children who have been abused, neglected or abandoned, the juvenile need only demonstrate that reunification with one (not both) of his or her parents “is not viable due to abuse, neglect, abandonment, or a similar basis found under State law…”:

…Susy established that reunification with her father was not viable due to abandonment (see 8 USC § 1101[a][27][J][i]…). The Family Court, as evidenced by its comments at the hearing, denied Susy’s application for a special findings order on the ground that the viability of reunification with Susy’s mother rendered Susy ineligible for SIJS. However, we disagree with the Family Court’s interpretation of the reunification component of the statute.

“To interpret a statute, we first look to its plain language, as that represents the most compelling evidence of the Legislature’s intent” … . Under the plain language of the statute, to be eligible for SIJS, a court must find that “reunification with 1 or both of the immigrant’s parents is not viable due to abuse, neglect, abandonment, or a similar basis found under State law” (8 USC § 1101[a][27][J][i] [emphasis added]). We interpret the “1 or both” language to provide SIJS eligibility where reunification with just one parent is not viable as a result of abuse, neglect, abandonment, or a similar State law basis… .  Matter of Marcelina M-Gv Israel S, 2013 NY Slip Op 06868, 2nd Dept 10-23-13

 

, ,

Padilla v Kentucky, Which Held Attorney’s Failure to Inform Client of Immigration Consequences of Plea Was Ineffective Assistance, Not Applied Retroactively Under New York Constitution

The Second Department determined Padilla v Kentucky, 559 US 356, which held an attorney’s failure to inform his or her client of the immigration consequences of a plea constituted ineffective assistance of counsel, should not be applied retroactively under the New York Constitution:

In People v Pepper (53 NY2d 213, cert denied sub nom. New York v Utter, 454 US 1162), the Court of Appeals addressed the issue of whether a new rule should be retroactively applied under the New York Constitution. It recognized three factors a court should weigh to determine whether to retroactively apply a new rule: (1) the purpose to be served by the new standard, (2) the extent to which law enforcement authorities relied upon the old standard, and (3) the effect a retroactive application of the new standard would have on the administration of justice (see id. at 220). The Court of Appeals explained that “the extent of the reliance and the nature of the burden on the administration of justice are of substantial significance only when the answer to the retroactivity question is not to be found in the purpose of the new rule itself” (id.). Thus, a new rule that goes “to the heart of a reliable determination of guilt or innocence” will be retroactively applied “where otherwise there could be a complete miscarriage of justice” (id. at 221). However, a new rule which is “only collateral to or relatively far removed from the fact-finding process at trial” (id.), will have only prospective application. Although the Supreme Court in Padilla held that the Sixth Amendment requires criminal defense counsel to inform their clients whether a guilty plea carries a risk of deportation, this new rule, rather than going to the heart of a reliable determination of guilt or innocence, instead concentrates on the defendant’s appreciation of the immigration consequences that may flow from an otherwise proper plea allocution … .

Retroactive application of Padilla is also not warranted under the second and third Pepper factors. With regard to law enforcement reliance, prior to Padilla, a defendant could prevail on an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim only if it was established that counsel rendered incorrect advice regarding the immigration consequences of the guilty plea and that the defendant was prejudiced thereby … . The failure to advise a defendant of the possibility of deportation did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel …, and such failure to advise did not “affect the voluntariness of a plea of guilty or the validity of a conviction” (CPL 220.50[7]). Thus, under the old standard, prosecutors could recommend acceptance of plea allocutions even where the defendant had not been advised of the immigration consequences of entering into the plea …. As to the third factor, retroactive application of the Padilla rule would potentially lead to an influx of CPL 440.10 motions to vacate the convictions of defendants whose guilty pleas were properly entered and accepted by courts under the old standard …, thus adversely affecting the criminal justice system. Accordingly, we further find that under New York law, the Padilla rule should not be retroactively applied to cases like this one where the convictions became final prior to March 31, 2010, the date Padilla was decided.  People v Andrews, 2013 NY Slip Op 05469, 2nd Dept 7-24-13

 

,

Children Were Not “Dependent on Court;” They Therefore Did Not Meet Criteria for Statutory Path to Lawful Permanent Residency in US

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Cohen, the Second Department determined that two children born in Hong Kong, and living with their father in New York, did not meet the “dependency-on-the-family-court” requirement such that they could petition for special immigrant juvenile status (SJIS) pursuant to 8 USC1101 (which provides undocumented children with a gateway to lawful permanent residency in the US).  The court explained:

In New York, a child may request that the Family Court, recognized as a juvenile court (see 8 CFR 204.11[a]), issue an order making special findings and a declaration so that he or she may petition the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services for SIJS … . Specifically, the findings of fact must establish that: (1) the child is under 21 years of age; (2) the child is unmarried; (3) the child is dependent upon a juvenile court or legally committed to an individual appointed by a State or juvenile court; (4) reunification with one or both parents is not viable due to abuse, neglect, abandonment, or a similar basis; and (5) it is not in the child’s best interests to be returned to his or her home country (see 8 USC § 1101[a][27][J][ii]; 8 CFR 204.11[c]). With the declaration and special findings, the eligible child may then seek the consent of the Department of Homeland Security for SIJS (see 8 USC § 1101[a][27][J][iii]).  * * *

The requirement that a child be dependent upon the juvenile court or, alternatively, committed to the custody of an individual appointed by a State or juvenile court, ensures that the process is not employed inappropriately by children who have sufficient family support and stability to pursue permanent residency in the United States through other, albeit more protracted, procedures. In this case, there has been no need for intervention by the Family Court to ensure that the appellants were placed in a safe and appropriate custody, guardianship, or foster care situation, and the appellants have not been committed to the custody of any individual by any court….

While the appellants met all of the other requirements for SIJS, the Family Court correctly determined that the dependency requirement had not been satisfied. A child becomes dependent upon a juvenile court when the court accepts jurisdiction over the custody of that child, irrespective of whether the child has been placed in foster care or a guardianship situation… . The Family Court has only granted applications for SIJS special findings where dependency upon the court was established by way of guardianship, adoption, or custody.  Matter of Hei Ting C, 2013 NY Slip Op 05310, 2nd Dept 7-17-13

 

, ,

Supreme Court Case Relied Upon to Vacate Convictions by Guilty Plea Where Defendant Not Informed of Possibility of Deportation Can Not Be Applied Retroactively

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Tom, reversed the sentencing court’s vacation of defendant’s conviction (by guilty plea).  The sentencing court had reversed the conviction on the ground defendant had not been informed of the risk of deportation based on the plea.  The sentencing court’s ruling was based upon the US Supreme Court’s ruling in Padilla v Kentucky, 559 US 356 (2010), which the sentencing court determined should be applied retroactively.  The First Department explained that Padilla should not be applied retroactively, overruling First Department and 3rd Department precedent:

Padilla has been accorded retroactive application by this Court …and the 3rd Department…. However, since Padilla “marks a break from both Federal and State law precedents . . . and fundamentally alters the Federal constitutional landscape, the principles of retroactivity developed by the Supreme Court in construing Federal constitutional law govern the disposition of this case” (People v Eastman, 85 NY2d 265, 275 [1995]).

The holding that Padilla announced new law, by which this Court is bound, dictates the conclusion that it has no retroactive application. As Eastman explains:  “Pursuant to Teague, new rules of constitutional criminal procedure are applied retrospectively in one of two situations: (1) where the new rule places certain kinds of primary, private individual conduct beyond the power of the criminal law making authority to proscribe’ or (2) where the new rule alters a bedrock procedural element of criminal procedure which implicates the fundamental fairness and accuracy of the trial” (Eastman, 85 NY2d at 275, quoting Teague, 489 US at 311-312).

The rule announced in Padilla does neither, merely prescribing a duty imposed on counsel, and does not warrant retroactive application. Thus, defendant may not avail himself of the ruling… People v Verdejo, 2013 NY Slip Op 04913, 1st Dept 6-27-13

 

, ,

Legal Malpractice Action Based Upon Course of Action Taken in Immigration Proceedings Reinstated

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Manzanet-Daniels, the First Department reinstated a cause of action for legal malpractice in an immigration case.  The complaint alleged a law firm followed an unreasonable course of action in pursuing plaintiff’s application for adjustment of immigration status which led to her removal:

Given plaintiff’s allegations that she had no chance of obtaining immigration relief and that defendants failed to thoroughly discuss the possibility, if not certainty, of reinstatement of the order of deportation and removal upon submission of the application, plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that defendants followed an unreasonable course of action in pursuing the application …. Moreover, she has sufficiently alleged proximate cause, because the submission of the application alerted authorities to her status, which led to the issuance of the reinstatement order and ultimately to her removal…. Plaintiff’s unlawful status alone did not trigger her removal, since she had resided in the United States, albeit unlawfully, for more than six years; she was removed only after defendants affirmatively alerted immigration authorities to her presence. The record does not indicate on this motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 that plaintiff would have otherwise come to the attention of the immigration authorities. Without discovery on the issue, it cannot yet be said, as defendants assert, that plaintiff would have been deported regardless of defendants’ malpractice. Indeed, had plaintiff waited four more years she would have been eligible to apply for reinstatement under INA § 212(a)(9)(C)(ii), which provides that an alien in plaintiff’s position can apply for admission if more than ten years have passed from the date of the alien’s last departure from the United States. Delgado v Bretz & Coven, LLP, 2013 NY Slip Op 04720, 1st Dept, 6-20-13

 

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy