Quiroga v. Commissioner of Correction, 2014 WL 1202591

Petitioner Nestor Quiroga, a lawful permanent resident of Uruguay, pleaded guilty to possession of narcotics and nolo contendere to first‑degree larceny in Connecticut in March 2008; the court advised him pleas may have immigration consequences and found pleas knowing and voluntary.
He violated probation in 2010, was sentenced to one year, and while incarcerated received a DHS Notice to Appear charging removability on three grounds: a controlled‑substance conviction, an aggravated‑felony theft conviction (larceny), and two crimes of moral turpitude.
Petitioner filed an amended state habeas petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to advise and litigate immigration consequences of the larceny plea; the habeas court held counsel was not deficient after an expedited trial and denied relief.
During the habeas proceedings, an immigration judge found all three removal grounds proven and ordered removal; the BIA later dismissed the petitioner’s immigration appeal, and the petitioner was removed to Uruguay in April 2012.
Petitioner appealed the habeas denial to the Connecticut Appellate Court but the Commissioner argued the appeal is moot because petitioner was deported and the record shows other independent bases (narcotics convictions) for removal.

Issue	Petitioner’s Argument	Respondent’s Argument	Held
Whether the appeal is moot after petitioner’s deportation	Quiroga: collateral‑consequences exception preserves jurisdiction because the larceny plea was the primary cause of deportation and future law changes could permit return	Commissioner: Appeal is moot under Aquino because petitioner was deported and record shows removability was not solely due to the larceny plea	Appeal dismissed as moot; petitioner failed to show the larceny plea was sole basis for deportation
Whether collateral‑consequences exception applies to permit review	Quiroga: reasonable possibility Congress or law might change so relief would allow reentry; plea vacatur could enable future cancellation of removal	Commissioner: Possibility of future statutory change is speculative and insufficient to avoid mootness	Collateral‑consequences exception not established; future law change is pure conjecture
Whether habeas court erred in finding no deficient performance re: immigration advice	Quiroga: trial counsel failed to research/advice and incorporate immigration consequences into plea bargaining (claim presented below)	Commissioner: Even assuming error, no practical relief available because petitioner is removed and narcotics convictions independently supported removal	Court did not reach ineffectiveness merits on appeal because mootness was dispositive; habeas court had found no deficiency

State v. Aquino, 279 Conn. 293 (mootness where deportation occurred absent evidence guilty plea was sole reason for removal)
State v. McElveen, 261 Conn. 198 (collateral‑consequences exception standard: reasonable possibility of prejudicial collateral consequences)
Burbank v. Board of Education, 299 Conn. 833 (actual controversy requirement; courts cannot decide moot questions)
State v. Milner, 309 Conn. 744 (courts must resolve actual controversies; advisory opinions prohibited)
Williams v. Ragaglia, 261 Conn. 219 (standard for showing collateral consequences more than speculative)
United States v. Rosenbaum‑Alanis, 483 F.3d 381 (deportation that prevents reentry renders appeal moot)
Gousse v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 91 (Second Circuit precedent relied on by immigration judge regarding controlled‑substance removability)
Carachuri‑Rosendo v. Holder, 560 U.S. 563 (discussing cancellation of removal and aggravated felony bar)