Ravidath Ragbir v. United States
950 F.3d 54
| 3rd Cir. | 2020Background:
- Ravidath Ragbir, a lawful permanent resident, was convicted in 2000 of wire fraud/mortgage fraud after trial; at sentencing he stipulated (on counsel’s advice) to an actual-loss range resulting in $350,001 restitution.
- The stipulated loss exceeded $10,000, which DHS treated as making Ragbir’s fraud an aggravated felony for immigration removal purposes.
- Ragbir did not pursue §2255 relief; after immigration proceedings and litigation, he filed a coram nobis petition in federal district court (first in 2012, renewed in 2017) seeking vacatur, a new trial, or resentencing based on ineffective assistance and alleged erroneous jury instructions.
- The district court held an evidentiary hearing and denied coram nobis in 2019; Ragbir appealed, arguing (inter alia) trial counsel misadvised him about immigration consequences, failed to investigate/contest loss and present expert evidence, and that certain jury instructions (willful blindness; scheme to defraud/dishonesty language) were erroneous or vague.
- The Third Circuit affirmed: it concluded Ragbir satisfied the custody-consequence elements but failed to meet coram nobis’ more stringent requirements—primarily lack of sound reasons for a nearly ten-year delay and absence of a fundamental error warranting the extraordinary writ.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness / "sound reasons" for delay in seeking coram nobis | Ragbir: relied on administrative remedies, only learned immigration significance later, some claims ripened after later Supreme Court decisions | Government: long delay (≈10 years) unjustified; Ragbir could have raised claims earlier and should not have delayed while pursuing administrative relief exclusively | Denied: delay unreasonable; pursuing administrative remedies and later-developing caselaw do not provide sound reasons for six-plus years of inaction |
| Ineffective assistance for affirmative misadvice about immigration consequences | Ragbir: trial counsel told him conviction alone made him deportable, inducing stipulation to loss amount without hearing | Government: misadvice claim could have been raised earlier; counsel’s actions not shown to be fundamentally defective under coram nobis standard | Denied: claim was available earlier; no sound reason for delay and not shown to be fundamental error |
| Ineffective assistance for failure to investigate/contest loss amount and to present expert testimony | Ragbir: counsel failed to investigate titles, recoverable losses, and failed to retain a linguistics expert to challenge confession | Government: these investigative/penalty-phase issues could have been raised on appeal or earlier collateral attack | Denied: claims were reasonably available years earlier and thus untimely for coram nobis; not shown to be fundamental |
| Faulty jury instructions (willful blindness; "scheme or artifice to defraud" vagueness) | Ragbir: instructions allowed conviction for non-criminal or insufficiently defined conduct; related doctrinal developments post-trial (Skilling, Global-Tech) clarify errors | Government: relevant caselaw and doctrinal guidance existed at trial or on appeal; these are matters ordinarily remediable by new trial or appeal, not coram nobis | Denied: instructions were challengeable earlier; errors that permit a new trial are generally not "fundamental" for coram nobis absent conviction of lawful conduct |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502 (1954) (revived coram nobis as an extraordinary remedy to correct fundamental errors)
- United States v. Denedo, 556 U.S. 904 (2009) (coram nobis is extraordinary and unavailable when other remedies exist)
- Mendoza v. United States, 690 F.3d 157 (3d Cir. 2012) (timeliness/sound-reason standard for coram nobis in this Circuit)
- United States v. Orocio, 645 F.3d 630 (3d Cir. 2011) (standards of review for coram nobis appeals)
- United States v. Stoneman, 870 F.2d 102 (3d Cir. 1989) (coram nobis limited to fundamental errors undermining trial validity)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (governing ineffective-assistance-of-counsel analysis)
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (counsel’s immigration-advice obligations relevant to ineffective-assistance claims)
- United States v. Panarella, 277 F.3d 678 (3d Cir. 2002) (addressing breadth and notice concerns in federal fraud statutes)
- Carlisle v. United States, 517 U.S. 416 (1996) (observing rarity of coram nobis necessity)