A lawyer advising a non-citizen client in a criminal matter has an added duty: to advise the client of the immigration consequences, if any, of a criminal conviction. Failure to advise that results in a deportable consequence or some other immigration detriment, such as inability to naturalize or exclusion, could be the grounds for a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel under Padilla that could result in the underlying conviction being reopened and vacated.
The US Supreme Court issues a landmark decision that could affect the reopening and reduction of criminal sentences if the alien was given poor advice or no advice on the immigration consequences of a criminal conviction. Notable is the concurrence (agreement) by Justices Alito and Roberts.
This is an actual question I received via e-mail: “Is there an expiry date allowing relief if there has never been issued an NTA? My example is where, after a […]
In Parts I and II of this series, I wrote of how a case gets to immigration court and subsequently the basics of immigration court including what to expect at […]
-Immigration Court Part II- Master hearing and Individual hearing By Attorney Farhad Sethna, Copyright 2007, all rights reserved In part I of this series, we talked about how a case […]
-Immigration Court Explained: Part 1- The Court and the NTA By Farhad Sethna, Attorney Copyright 2007, all rights reserved This is part 1 of a series of articles on Immigration […]