Ana Ramirez-Gomez v. Loretta E. Lynch, 656 F. App'x 314

Petitioner Ana Ramirez-Gomez, a Mexican national, faced removal based on a 2004 California conviction for inflicting corporal injury on a spouse (Cal. Penal Code § 273.5).
She also had a 2012 California conviction for assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245(a)(1)), but the IJ relied only on the 2004 domestic-violence conviction to order removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i).
Ramirez-Gomez contended her § 1016.5 California admonition (which warned a conviction "may" result in deportation) was constitutionally inadequate because deportation was actually certain, and thus the admonition was misleading.
She argued the inadequate warning rendered the underlying conviction invalid and cited Kwan (coram nobis context) as analogous; she conceded Padilla did not control.
The government argued Ramirez-Gomez forfeited the claim by not presenting it to the BIA, and that the court lacked jurisdiction to consider a collateral attack on the state conviction; alternatively, the claim lacked merit.
The Ninth Circuit held Ramirez-Gomez did not forfeit the constitutional challenge but concluded the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain a collateral attack on the state conviction and dismissed the petition.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether claim was forfeited for failure to raise it to the BIA	Ramirez-Gomez said exhaustion was unnecessary because her challenge alleged a constitutional defect that BIA could not remedy	Government asserted she forfeited by not presenting the claim to the BIA	Court: No forfeiture — constitutional claim that BIA could not remedy need not be exhausted
Whether the court has jurisdiction to review/collaterally attack the underlying state conviction	Ramirez-Gomez sought to have conviction treated as invalid due to misleading § 1016.5 warning; relied on analogy to Kwan	Government said petitioner may not collaterally attack a state conviction on review of a BIA order	Court: No jurisdiction to consider a collateral attack on the state conviction; petition dismissed
Whether coram nobis or similar relief could be applied here	Ramirez-Gomez invoked Kwan as support for relief based on affirmative misadvice	Government noted coram nobis is limited and, if applicable, must be pursued in the sentencing/state court	Court: Even if coram nobis were relevant, it must be sought in the trial court; Ninth Circuit cannot order BIA to vacate the state conviction

Bojnoordi v. Holder, 757 F.3d 1075 (de novo review of constitutional and other questions of law)
Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773 (standards for reviewing legal questions)
Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (attorney advice on immigration consequences can implicate Sixth Amendment; noted as not governing here)
United States v. Kwan, 407 F.3d 1005 (coram nobis granted for affirmative misadvice regarding immigration consequences)
Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674 (exhaustion exception for constitutional claims beyond agency competence)
Ramirez-Villalpando v. Holder, 645 F.3d 1035 (petitioner may not collaterally attack state conviction in petition for review of BIA decision)
United States v. Monreal, 301 F.3d 1127 (coram nobis must be brought in the sentencing court)