United States v. Donjuan, 16-8096

Background

In July 2011 Donjuan, a Mexican national unlawfully present in the U.S., was indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 1546(b)(1) for knowingly using an unauthorized permanent resident card and social security card; he pleaded guilty in September 2011.
The record does not show what counsel told Donjuan pre-plea, but at the plea hearing the district court warned that pleading guilty would likely have adverse immigration consequences, including deportation; Donjuan acknowledged understanding and said he was satisfied with counsel.
The district court sentenced Donjuan to time served (plus up to ten days for deportation), and DHS initiated removal proceedings; Donjuan conceded removability but sought cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1).
The Immigration Court denied cancellation because the § 1546 conviction made him ineligible; the BIA affirmed and this court denied his petition for review.
Donjuan filed a coram nobis petition in the district court seeking to vacate the § 1546 conviction, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel (Padilla claim) and a due process violation for inadequate advisement; the district court denied relief and Donjuan appealed.
The Tenth Circuit affirmed, concluding Donjuan failed to overcome the presumption of verity accorded to his in-court plea statements and failed to show counsel’s performance was constitutionally deficient or that the court’s colloquy violated due process.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether coram nobis relief is available and warranted	Donjuan sought coram nobis because he was no longer in custody and thus could not bring § 2255; he argued extraordinary relief was necessary	District court argued coram nobis is extraordinary but considered merits because no other remedy was available	Court treated coram nobis as available but denied relief on the merits
Whether counsel rendered ineffective assistance under Padilla/Strickland by misadvising immigration consequences	Donjuan: counsel told him he had a chance to remain/obtain LPR status; he would not have pled guilty if he knew he was ineligible for cancellation	Government: plea colloquy shows Donjuan was warned he would likely be deported and affirmed satisfaction with counsel; Donjuan’s later affidavit is self-serving and contradicts the record	Held: No deficient performance — Donjuan failed to overcome the presumption of verity of his plea statements; coram nobis denied
Whether the district court’s plea colloquy violated due process by failing to state the degree of removal risk	Donjuan: court should have informed him more precisely about the risk to his immigration status	Government: due process requires awareness of direct consequences only; deportation is collateral and the court adequately warned of likely adverse immigration consequences	Held: No due process violation — colloquy was adequate and informed him of likely immigration consequences
Whether Padilla extends to judicial advisement or to convictions that only affect eligibility for discretionary relief	Donjuan: relied on Padilla to argue he was entitled to precise immigration advisals	Government: Padilla governs counsel’s Sixth Amendment duty, not court’s due process duty; Padilla differs factually because Donjuan was already removable and plea only affected eligibility for discretionary relief	Held: Padilla does not extend to the court’s due process duties here; factual distinctions make Padilla inapplicable to Donjuan’s claim

Key Cases Cited

Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (Sixth Amendment duty of counsel to advise noncitizen clients about clear deportation consequences)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63 (1977) (solemn in-court plea statements carry strong presumption of verity)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (applying Strickland in plea context)
Rawlins v. Kansas, 714 F.3d 1189 (10th Cir. 2013) (coram nobis is an extraordinary remedy)
Klein v. United States, 880 F.2d 250 (10th Cir. 1989) (coram nobis availability and standards)
United States v. Hurlich, 293 F.3d 1223 (10th Cir. 2002) (due process requires pleas to be knowing, voluntary, intelligent; collateral consequences need not be explained)