Orlando Medina Lopez v. Atty Gen USA
425 F. App'x 146
| 3rd Cir. | 2011Background
- Medina Lopez, a Dominican citizen, entered the U.S. in 1993 as a lawful permanent resident.
- He was convicted in New York in 2001 for attempted criminal sale of cocaine and sentenced to five years’ probation.
- DHS issued a notice to appear in 2009 alleging removability for a controlled-substance offense and an aggravated felony.
- An immigration judge (IJ) found Medina removable after considering counsel’s argument that the drug conviction might not be an aggravated felony.
- The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed, and Medina petitioned for review in this court.
- Medina raises claims about finality of his conviction, ineffective assistance of counsel, and lack of transcripts, among other issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Medina’s state conviction is final for immigration purposes | Medina contends pendency of state post-conviction proceedings undermines finality | Government argues finality remains despite pendency; no vacatur shown | Finality exists; pendency does not vitiate finality absent vacatur. |
| Whether Padilla/ineffective-assistance claims require remand or relief | Medina relies on Padilla and Lozada to challenge counsel’s performance | Board/ IJ cannot invalidate state judgment; Lozada procedures not satisfied | No remand required; ineffective-assistance challenge to state conviction not reviewable in removal proceeding. |
| Whether missing transcripts justify remand or stay denial | Transcript absence prejudiced preparation of Medina’s brief | Record contains all relevant transcripts; missing transcript not prejudicial | Board did not abuse discretion; transcripts available were sufficient. |
| INA § 242(a)(2)(C) jurisdiction limit; review of removal order where aggravated felony/substance offense found | Medina seeks review of legal/constitutional questions | Court lacks jurisdiction to review removability findings; limited review | Court retains jurisdiction only for constitutional/legal questions; removal order affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S. Ct. 1473 (2010) (counsel's failure to warn about deportation consequences; ineffective assistance context)
- Steele v. Blackman, 236 F.3d 130 (3d Cir. 2001) (drug-trafficking element discussion relevant to aggravated felony)
- Pinho v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 193 (3d Cir. 2005) (vacatur of conviction defeats immigration finality)
- Zheng v. Gonzales, 422 F.3d 98 (3d Cir. 2005) (pendency of collateral attacks and finality standards)
- Paredes v. Att’y Gen. of U.S., 528 F.3d 196 (3d Cir. 2008) (pendency of post-conviction motions does not vitiate finality unless overturned)
- Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988) (procedural requirements for ineffective-assistance claims)
- Drakes v. Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 330 F.3d 600 (3d Cir. 2003) (collateral challenges to judgments; not reviewable in immigration proceedings)
- Gerbier v. Holmes, 280 F.3d 297 (3d Cir. 2002) (hypothetical federal felony analysis for state convictions)
- Conviser (New York State Supreme Court decision), No. 07044-99 (2010) (Padilla-based ineffectiveness analysis; not a published federal decision)