634 F. App'x 528
6th Cir.2015Background
- Omar Manjang, a Gambian national, falsely represented himself as a U.S. citizen when applying to a Cincinnati community college and pleaded guilty to willful misrepresentation of citizenship under 18 U.S.C. § 911.
- At plea and sentencing hearings the district court warned Manjang that the government would likely request deportation and that his plea could be a basis for deportation; Manjang acknowledged understanding and pled guilty.
- Manjang received time served and one year supervised release and was remanded on an immigration detainer; immigration counsel later advised the conviction permanently barred reentry.
- Removal efforts stalled because The Gambia no longer recognized Manjang as a citizen, resulting in indefinite supervised release rather than deportation.
- After serving his sentence, Manjang filed a petition for a writ of coram nobis to vacate his guilty plea, arguing he would not have pled guilty had he known the true immigration consequences and that counsel failed to arrange prior immigration consultation. The district court denied relief.
- Manjang appealed; the Sixth Circuit reviewed legal questions de novo and factual findings for clear error and affirmed the denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether coram nobis relief is warranted for counsel's alleged failure to secure pre-plea immigration consultation (ineffective assistance) | Counsel should have arranged immigration consultation before the plea; this failure deprived him of effective assistance and would have altered his plea decision | Padilla announced that Strickland governs counsel's obligation on immigration consequences; but Padilla announced a new rule not retroactive to final convictions | Denied — Padilla's Strickland rule is a new rule and is not retroactive to convictions already final, so coram nobis relief cannot be predicated on applying Padilla/Strickland here |
| Whether the district court misled Manjang about deportation/reentry possibilities | District court statements gave impression he might later reenter or avoid deportation, supporting vacatur | Court had no duty to advise on immigration consequences; Manjang failed to show misleading statements or conform to coram nobis elements; claim unpreserved and factually unsupported | Denied — claim waived/unpreserved and lacks factual/legal basis; district court had no obligation to advise on immigration consequences |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (Sup. Ct. 1984) (establishes ineffective assistance of counsel standard)
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (Sup. Ct. 2010) (counsel must advise about immigration consequences of guilty pleas; announced a new rule)
- Chaidez v. United States, 568 U.S. 342 (Sup. Ct. 2013) (new rules like Padilla are not retroactive to convictions that were already final)
- Johnson v. United States, 237 F.3d 751 (6th Cir. 2001) (standards for coram nobis relief)
- Blanton v. United States, 94 F.3d 227 (6th Cir. 1996) (coram nobis availability when petitioner no longer in custody)
- Leary v. Livingston County, 528 F.3d 438 (6th Cir. 2008) (undeveloped legal arguments are deemed waived)