10-1917 Alvarado-Fonseca v. Holder

Listen to this article

Immigration
Ex post facto clause

Retroactive application of criteria for deportation does not violate the ex post facto clause.

“In Padilla, the Court held that counsel for an alien charged with a crime has a constitutional obligation to tell the client that a guilty plea carries a risk of deportation. Id. at 1486. In reaching that conclusion, the Court noted that ‘deportation is a particularly severe “penalty,”‘ and that removal proceedings, while ‘civil in nature,’ are ‘intimately related to the criminal process.’ Id. at 1481. However, the Court also reaffirmed that deportation ‘is not, in a strict sense, a criminal sanction.’ Id. In light of that statement, we cannot agree that Padilla provides sufficient guidance to deviate from the long line cases establishing that statutes retroactively setting criteria for deportation do not violate the ex post facto clause.”

Petition Denied.

10-1917 Alvarado-Fonseca v. Holder

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals, Flaum, J.

Full Text