Doe v. United States


17-1841 Doe v. United States UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT _______________ August Term, 2018 (Argued: October 22, 2018 Decided: February 14, 2019) Docket No. 17-1841 _______________ JOHN DOE, Petitioner-Appellant, —v.— UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent-Appellee. _______________ B e f o r e: KATZMANN, Chief Judge, KEARSE AND CHIN, Circuit Judges. _______________ Petitioner-appellant John Doe appeals from a judgment entered in the United States District Court for the Doe filed a petition for a writ of error coram nobis seeking to vacate his earlier 1 conviction for conspiracy . The petition argues that Doe’s defense counsel was ineffective in affirmatively assuring him that there should be no immigration consequences for pleading guilty when, in fact, the crime to which he pleaded was an aggravated felony resulting in mandatory removal. The Government joined in Doe’s petition after originally opposing it; the district court nevertheless denied the petition. On appeal, Doe argues that the district court applied incorrect legal standards in evaluating the petition and that the court abused its discretion in denying relief. The Government now argues that the district court’s decision was not an abuse of discretion. We agree with Doe that the court below erred and that Doe is entitled to relief. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is REVERSED and the case is REMANDED. _______________ , for Petitioner-Appellant. (argued), Assistant United States Attorneys, for , United States Attorney for the for Respondent-Appellee. _______________ KATZMANN, Chief Judge: Petitioner-Appellant John Doe 1 filed a writ of coram nobis in 2014 to vacate a prior conviction. Both the Government and Doe’s original attorney admitted that Doe was misled as to the serious immigration consequences of the crime to 1 Petitioner has been given the pseudonym “John Doe” throughout this litigation to safeguard his identity. All citations to the record in this case have been omitted. 2 which he pleaded guilty. The Government, after initially opposing the coram nobis petition, joined in asking the district court to grant it. The district court nevertheless denied the petition. Troublingly, the Government has now switched positions again, arguing that the district court did not abuse its discretion. On review, we grant the petition. BACKGROUND Pursuant to a plea agreement, Doe pleaded guilty in to a one-count information charging him with conspiracy . As part of his agreement, Doe consented to cooperate with the Government. Doe was sentenced in to . In , Doe filed a petition for a writ of error coram nobis. According to the petition, Doe’s attorney had assured him that his plea should not result in removal, when in fact the admitted loss amount rendered it an aggravated felony, resulting in a lifetime citizenship bar, a conclusive presumption of deportability, and automatic denial of discretionary relief. See 3 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(43)(M)(i) (defining aggravated felony as including “an offense that involves fraud or deceit in which the loss to the victim or victims exceeds $10,000”), 1101(f)(8), 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), 1228(c), 1229b(a)(3), 1229b(b)(1)(C), 1427(a). The petition also included an earlier written ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals