Dilang Dat v. United States, 920 F.3d 1192

Dat, a long-time lawful permanent resident from South Sudan, pled guilty in 2014 to Hobbs Act robbery (one count) and was sentenced to 78 months; other counts were dismissed per the plea agreement.
Before pleading, Dat asked counsel about deportation; counsel allegedly consulted an immigration specialist then told Dat he would not be deported because he was a lawful permanent resident.
Dat rejected two earlier plea offers with stronger deportation language and accepted a plea that included only a general warning about possible collateral immigration consequences.
After conviction, Dat learned his immigration status was affected when his green card renewal was denied; he then filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for incorrect immigration advice.
The district court denied the § 2255 motion without an evidentiary hearing, concluding plea documents and the change-of-plea colloquy advised him about immigration consequences; Dat appealed.
The Eighth Circuit found the record inconclusive on whether counsel’s alleged affirmative misadvice was cured and held an evidentiary hearing was required.

Issue	Dat's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether counsel provided constitutionally deficient advice about deportation	Counsel affirmatively told Dat he would not be deported	Plea agreement, PSR, and colloquy warned of immigration consequences, so any misadvice was cured	Counsel’s alleged affirmative misadvice, if true, is deficient because deportation for Dat’s offense is clear
Whether Dat was prejudiced by the alleged misadvice (would have gone to trial)	Dat would have rejected the plea and insisted on trial to avoid deportation	Contemporaneous plea documents and acknowledgments show Dat knew of immigration risk, undermining his claim	Record contains sufficient contemporaneous evidence of prejudice to require an evidentiary hearing
Whether plea paperwork and court colloquy remedied counsel’s alleged misadvice	Counsel’s assurance undermined the equivocal warnings so Dat reasonably relied on it	General warnings in plea forms and colloquy cured counsel’s error	Record is inconclusive whether warnings cured the misadvice; a hearing is needed
Whether district court abused discretion by denying an evidentiary hearing on § 2255	A hearing is required because factual disputes exist and allegations, if true, entitle Dat to relief	Denial justified because plea documents and colloquy contradicted Dat’s affidavit	District court abused its discretion; case remanded for an evidentiary hearing

Padilla v. United States, 559 U.S. 356 (Sup. Ct. 2010) (counsel must advise about clear immigration consequences of guilty pleas)
Jae Lee v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1958 (Sup. Ct. 2017) (prejudice standard for plea-based Strickland claims; look to contemporaneous evidence)
Hyles v. United States, 754 F.3d 530 (8th Cir. 2014) (standards for § 2255 ineffective-assistance review and evidentiary-hearing abuse-of-discretion review)
Diaz v. United States, 863 F.3d 781 (8th Cir. 2017) (Hobbs Act robbery qualifies as a crime of violence for aggravated-felony analysis)
Chaidez v. United States, 568 U.S. 342 (Sup. Ct. 2013) (aggravated-felony convictions subject lawful permanent residents to mandatory removal)