Dilang Dat v. United States, 983 F.3d 1045

Dilang N. Dat, a lawful permanent resident born in a Kenyan refugee camp, pleaded guilty to one count of robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 1951 and was sentenced to 78 months; the conviction is an aggravated felony and deportable.
Dat moved under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, claiming trial counsel Kyle Allen ineffectively advised him by assuring he would not be deported if he pled guilty.
At an evidentiary hearing Allen testified she repeatedly warned Dat the charged offenses were deportable, told him he "could face immigration ramifications which could result in deportation," reviewed plea paperwork and PSR language about immigration, and encouraged him to hire an immigration attorney.
Dat, his mother, and his fiancée testified Allen told him he would not be deported; the district court found their testimony not credible and found Allen credible.
The district court denied relief on ineffective-assistance grounds; the Eighth Circuit affirmed, concluding Allen’s advice was objectively reasonable under Padilla and related precedent.

Issue	Dat's Argument	United States/Allen's Argument	Held
Whether counsel's advice about immigration consequences was objectively unreasonable under Strickland/Padilla	Allen told Dat he would not be deported; this was deficient advice	Allen warned Dat he "could" face deportation, reviewed plea docs, and advised consulting an immigration lawyer	Counsel's performance was objectively reasonable; district court credibility findings upheld
Whether counsel was required to tell Dat deportation was a "virtual certainty"	Allen should have said deportation was virtually certain given the aggravated-felony conviction	Padilla and subsequent cases do not require counsel to predict certainty; immigration relief possibilities counsel against certainty	No duty to state "virtual certainty"; saying defendant "could" be deported satisfied Padilla
Whether prejudice under Strickland was established	Dat argued he would not have pled guilty but for incorrect advice	Court found no need to reach prejudice after resolving performance prong in favor of counsel	Court did not address prejudice because claim fails on performance prong

Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (counsel must advise noncitizen defendants about deportation risks of guilty pleas)
Chaidez v. United States, 568 U.S. 342 (Padilla requires advising noncitizen clients of deportation risks)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Lee v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1958 (applying Strickland to plea-stage ineffective-assistance claims)
United States v. Ramirez-Jimenez, 907 F.3d 1091 (counsel need not state that deportation is inevitable; caution about immigration complexities)
Bonilla v. United States, 637 F.3d 980 (discussing when "virtual certainty" warnings may be required)
Barajas v. United States, 877 F.3d 378 (duty to inform clients about immigration consequences)
Dat v. United States, 920 F.3d 1192 (prior appellate opinion in this case addressing related issues)
Walking Eagle v. United States, 742 F.3d 1079 (standard of review for mixed law-fact ineffective-assistance claims)