United States v. Chan Ho Shin, 891 F. Supp. 2d 849

Shin pled guilty to four counts of filing false tax returns under 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1) and received five years of probation with conditions.
Shin, a lawful permanent resident, feared deportation and sought to avoid removal through counsel’s advice.
Shin’s counsel advised pleading to four counts and acknowledging $263,963 understatements; information did not specify loss amount.
Shin traveled to Korea and upon return was placed in removal proceedings as deportable due to a crime of moral turpitude.
Shin argued his plea was caused by ineffective assistance of counsel, especially regarding immigration consequences; Kawashima and Padilla framed advance issues.
Court concludes coram nobis review applies to an ineffective-assistance claim, which will be evaluated under Strickland v. Washington.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel’s immigration-advising duties were deficient.	Shin argues Padilla imposed a duty to advise.	Shin contends counsel failed to foresee Kawashima’s rule.	Padilla applies; court considers prejudice (insufficient shown) and denies relief.
Whether Shin was prejudiced by the allegedly deficient advice.	But-for counsel, Shin would have gone to trial.	Trial would not likely yield acquittal; plea was rational.	No reasonable probability of different outcome; prejudice not shown.
Whether counsel’s failure to negotiate a § 5324 plea was deficient.	Possible plea could avoid removal.	Government wouldn’t have accepted non-tax plea; speculation.	No deficient performance; speculation not enough.
Whether Padilla’s retroactivity matters for Shin’s claim.	Padilla should apply retroactively.	Retroactivity unsettled; but prejudice shown is required.	Retroactivity unresolved, but prejudice insufficient under Strickland.

Padilla v. United States, 559 U.S. 356 (U.S. 2010) (duty to advise noncitizen defendants about deportation risks (limited when not clear))
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (deficient performance and prejudice show required for ineffective assistance)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (U.S. 1985) (prejudice standard for guilty-plea ineffectiveness)
Pilla v. United States, 668 F.3d 368 (6th Cir. 2012) (coram nobis relief tied to ineffective assistance showing)
Blanton v. United States, 94 F.3d 231 (6th Cir. 1996) (coram nobis standards for fundamental error)
Nijhawan v. Holder, 557 U.S. 29 (U.S. 2009) (context for aggravated felony and loss amount)
Kawashima v. Holder, 132 S. Ct. 1166 (U.S. 2012) (holds certain tax offenses can be aggravated felonies)
Chaidez v. United States, — (U.S. 2012) (retroactivity discussion on Padilla)