Isxaaq v. State, 963 N.W.2d 260

Petitioner Yaasiin A. Isxaaq is a Somali national and lawful permanent resident (asylum seeker from 2014; LPR status in 2018) who faced removal proceedings and was detained by ICE in January 2020.
Isxaaq entered guilty pleas to three consolidated Class B misdemeanor matters: amended theft -> disorderly conduct (June 2016), misdemeanor sexual assault (March 2017), and misdemeanor theft (January 2020).
He sought post-conviction relief to withdraw those pleas, alleging pleas were not knowing, intelligent, or voluntary because (a) counsel did not use an interpreter and (b) counsel failed to advise him about adverse immigration consequences.
At an evidentiary hearing, Isxaaq testified he would have proceeded to trial if properly advised; his former attorneys testified they communicated effectively in English, discussed immigration risks (with varying degrees of certainty), and did not need interpreters.
The district court found Isxaaq understood English, rejected his claims of ineffective assistance for lack of prejudice under Strickland, and denied relief; the Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed.

Issue	Isxaaq's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Counsel failed to use an interpreter, so pleas were not knowing/voluntary	Language barrier prevented understanding pleas and counsel; would not have pled	Attorneys communicated in English, no interpreter needed; colloquies show comprehension	Court found credibility to attorneys, colloquies supported English comprehension; no relief
Counsel failed to advise on immigration consequences (Padilla claim)	Counsel did not inform him of deportation risks; would have gone to trial	Counsel either warned of immigration risk or law was unclear; no contemporaneous proof he would have rejected plea	Court resolved on Strickland prejudice prong: no reasonable probability he would have gone to trial; no manifest injustice

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (established the two‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (counsel must advise noncitizen client when law is clear that conviction leads to mandatory deportation)
Lee v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1958 (post‑conviction assertions require contemporaneous evidence to show a reasonable probability of rejecting plea)
Bahtiraj v. State, 840 N.W.2d 605 (N.D.) (applicant bears heavy burden; examples of contemporaneous evidence to show prejudice)
Kremer v. State, 945 N.W.2d 279 (N.D.) (withdrawal of plea analyzed under manifest injustice standard)
Awad v. State, 940 N.W.2d 613 (N.D.) (standard of review and manifest injustice framework for plea withdrawal)
Morris v. State, 930 N.W.2d 195 (N.D.) (post‑conviction proceedings governed by civil rules; factual findings reviewed for clear error)
Chhabra v. United States, 720 F.3d 395 (2d Cir.) (factors a court may consider when assessing whether a defendant would rationally reject a plea)