Home Page


Immigration Daily

Archives

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network

EB-5

移民日报

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Make us Homepage

Questions/Comments


SUBSCRIBE





The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
Copyright
© 1995-
ILW.COM,
American
Immigration LLC.

  • Article: New York Court Opens One Door Then Closes Another - Recent Decision Leaves Immigrant Defendants with No Real Remedy by Evangeline M. Chan, Esq.

    New York Court Opens One Door Then Closes Another—Recent Decision Leaves Immigrant Defendants with No Real Remedy

    by Evangeline M. Chan, Esq.


    New York State’s highest court recently ruled that judges must warn all non-citizen defendants prior to pleading guilty to a felony that doing so may result in deportation. While some may applaud this decision as yet another measure to safeguard the rights of non-citizens, as an immigration attorney that has represented clients that have not been adequately warned—whether by judges or by defense counsel—of the immigration consequences stemming from their pleas, from a practical point-of-view this ruling falls woefully short of providing non-citizen defendants with any real remedy.

    In its decision, the majority partially overturned its 1995 ruling in People v. Ford, that deportation is just a collateral consequence of a plea and therefore, trial courts need not warn of it. The court found that deportation today is such a substantial and unique consequence of a plea that trial courts must warn defendants as a matter of fundamental fairness. Failure to do so amounts to a due process violation and the avenue of recourse would be a direct appeal. However, the court stopped short of providing such defendants with the remedy that typically accompanies other due process violations of this sort, specifically, automatic withdrawal, holding instead that a defendant must first establish prejudice. This threshold is the same one a defendant must cross in ineffective assistance of counsel claims, which are established vis-à-vis a post-conviction “440 motion”.

    As Chief Judge Lippman and Judge Rivera recognized in their dissent, the result is simply incongruous. Piggy-backing onto the remedy for ineffective assistance of counsel claims is akin to an “empty gesture” when one considers just how extraordinarily difficult it is to prevail in such post-conviction motions. As the moving party, it is the defendant that bears the burden of establishing prejudice and that is a very heavy burden to meet.

    First, these defendants suffer from a lack of documentary evidence. Speaking little or no English and unaware of the intricacies of our legal system, this vulnerable class of defendants rarely keeps records of their dealings with their attorneys. Second, these defendants must deal with opposition from individuals that have been specifically trained to handle just these types of motions—individuals in the District Attorney’s appeals bureau. In the wake of Padilla v. Kentucky, the Supreme Court decision that held that defense counsel must properly warn non-citizen defendants of the deportation consequences of a plea, while there has not been an influx of post-conviction 440 motions, the DA’s office was nonetheless prepared to meet the challenge. The DA’s office, for the most part, does keep proper records and does its due diligence. And they secure witnesses—often getting the very attorney that previously represented the defendant to now testify in opposition of the defendant’s motion. Which is not surprising considering in an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, one can hardly expect an attorney to actually admit to any deficient representation. Consequently, defendants can find themselves up against not just one but two attorneys. It’s an uphill battle and the odds are stacked against them. In the end, defendants are effectively right where they started, with a due process violation and no real remedy to cure it.

    The appropriate remedy for these defendants must be an automatic withdrawal of the plea. Anything less is the equivalent of letting the offending party—the court—off the hook.


    About The Author

    Evangeline M. Chan, Esq. is an immigration attorney and adjunct assistant professor of immigration law at CUNY School of Professional Studies.


    The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of ILW.COM.
Put Free Immigration Law Headlines On Your Website

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers Enter your email address here: