Habeas Corpus — ineffective assistance — immigration consequences

Listen to this article

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

Criminal

Habeas Corpus — ineffective assistance — immigration consequences

Where a defendant’s attorney told her there could be immigration consequences to her guilty plea, counsel was not ineffective.

“The dependence of the statute of limitations on the petitioner’s exercise of due diligence is equivalent to a rule of ‘inquiry notice,’ see, e.g., Doe v. St. Francis School District, 694 F.3d 869, 872 (7th Cir. 2012); Nicholson v. Pulte Homes Corp., 690 F.3d 819, 826 (7th Cir. 2012); Ford v. Gonzalez, 683 F.3d 1230, 1236 (9th Cir. 2012), and the petitioner acquired such notice when her lawyer told her that her pleading guilty might have ‘immigration consequences.’ That was an ominous warning, and if she didn’t understand it she could have asked her lawyer what those consequences might be and if he didn’t know the answer he presumably would have inquired. He could have asked the probation service, since the presentence investigation report stated that a ‘felony conviction may make her amenable to removal proceedings.’ Apparently the petitioner asked no one what ‘immigration consequences’ she would be facing were she convicted. In all likelihood she didn’t think it necessary to ask because she knew full well what they would be. But all that matters is that she was not diligent in trying to discover what they would be.”

Affirmed.

12-1728 Clarke v. U.S.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Darrah, J., Posner, J.