In 2010, the Supreme Court ruled in Padilla v. Kentucky that defense attorneys had a duty to inform their clients of the potential risks a guilty plea would have on their immigration status. Why? Well, with a felony conviction, an immigrant, legal or non, would be banned from seeking citizenship or any other immigration status.<\/p>\n
The thing is, many immigrants, some who have been here for many years in legal status, have quite quickly found themselves in deport proceedings because of crimes they committed in the past. Many times, they accepted a guilty plea because it involved less jail time, or their attorney advised that the case was just not winnable. This advise was given in most cases without the knowledge of the immigration consequences of such a deal. The attorney didn’t know, and the client certainly didn’t know. So, hypothetically, a one time drug charge that happened when the immigrant was 18 would inevitably come back to haunt him at 50. 32 years after the fact. And now this immigrant, a family man and resident for many years, faces deportation for a mistake.<\/p>\n
The Padilla case changed this situation. Now attorneys have a duty to inform their clients of the immigration consequences they face because of the criminal charges against them. As of 2010, this is the law of the land. But what about cases that occured prior to 2010? Can a criminal case be challenged and re-opened based on a Padilla claim?<\/p>\n