Articles Posted in Immigration Law

by
Georgia appealed a habeas court’s order granting relief to appellee Thomas Addaquay on the ground that his plea counsel was constitutionally ineffective in incorrectly advising him of the immigration consequences of his plea of guilty. In 2012, Addaquay pled guilty to criminal damage to property in the second degree for conduct that occurred in 2002 and was sentenced as for a misdemeanor to 11 months and 29 days on probation. At that time, Addaquay was a “green card” holder and lawful permanent resident of the United States. Addaquay did not claim that the deportation consequences of his plea were unclear or uncertain, but instead claimed that he was clearly deportable based on his plea of guilty to criminal damage to property in the second degree and that plea counsel performed deficiently in telling him that he would not be deported. The Georgia Supreme Court concluded this claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was without merit: the decisive issue was whether Addaquay committed the crime within five years of his “date of admission” to this country. Addaquay failed to show that he was deportable under the removal statute, 8 USC 1227. View "Georgia v. Addaquay" on Justia Law

by
Defense counsel in this case advised petitioner that a guilty plea to a burglary charge "may" have had an impact on petitioner's immigration status. The consequences of the plea were clear: a conviction constituted an aggravated felony and would almost certainly lead to deportation proceedings under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). This case centered on the adequacy of an attorney’s immigration advice to a legal permanent resident who entered a guilty plea to a burglary charge. The habeas court denied petitioner's petition, finding that petitioner was advised "as accurately as possible regarding a negative impact on his immigration status, including, but not limited to, possible deportation." The court added: "[C]ounsel provided petitioner with consistent, accurate advice about the risk petitioner was facing. The advice and instruction provided to petitioner was neither 'mis-advice' nor insufficient or inadequate." Petitioner filed an application for a certificate of probable cause to appeal which the Supreme Court granted, posing the following question: "Did the habeas court properly analyze the claim presented?" The Supreme Court answered "no," reversed the habeas court, and remanded with directions. View "Encarnation v. Georgia" on Justia Law