United States v. Maureen Chan
792 F.3d 1151
9th Cir.2015Background
- Maureen Chan, a lawful permanent resident, pleaded guilty in 2000 to three counts of perjury and received a short prison term and supervised release.
- Before pleading, Chan contends her counsel affirmatively told her the plea would not have adverse immigration consequences.
- In 2012 DHS initiated removal proceedings charging Chan as inadmissible based on her conviction, prompting Chan to seek relief.
- In 2013 Chan filed a writ of error coram nobis seeking to withdraw her guilty plea based on ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) for affirmative misadvice about immigration consequences.
- The district court dismissed the petition, holding United States v. Kwan announced a new rule under Teague and was not retroactive; Chan appealed.
- The Ninth Circuit majority reversed, holding Kwan survives Padilla and did not announce a new rule under Teague, and remanded for merits consideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kwan (affirmative misrepresentation by counsel re: immigration consequences supports IAC) applies retroactively to Chan under Teague (i.e., whether Kwan announced a new rule) | Chan: Kwan addressed affirmative misadvice (not mere failure to advise), is consistent with preexisting authority, and thus is not a new rule and should apply retroactively | Government: Kwan announced a new rule distinct from Strickland’s general standard and Chaidez/Padilla show such changes are nonretroactive under Teague | The Ninth Circuit held Kwan survives Padilla, is distinguishable from the novelty in Padilla/Chaidez, and did not announce a new rule under Teague; Kwan applies retroactively to Chan’s coram nobis petition. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Kwan, 407 F.3d 1005 (9th Cir. 2005) (held that counsel’s affirmative misrepresentations about immigration consequences can constitute deficient performance under Strickland)
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (Sixth Amendment requires counsel to inform a client when a plea carries a risk of deportation; rejected direct/collateral distinction for deportation)
- Chaidez v. United States, 568 U.S. 342 (2013) (held Padilla announced a new rule and is not retroactive under Teague)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989) (framework for retroactivity of new rules on collateral review)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (established two-part ineffective-assistance standard)
- United States v. Fry, 322 F.3d 1198 (9th Cir. 2003) (pre-Padilla Ninth Circuit rule: failure to advise about collateral immigration consequences does not establish IAC)