923 F.3d 798
10th Cir.2019Background
- Miles, a physician, married a 14-year-old Cambodian girl (S.K.) after obtaining a K-1 visa; he falsely stated her age on immigration forms and pleaded guilty in 2009 to making a false statement in connection with a visa application.
- The information misstated the date of the K-1 application (listed February 2002 instead of July 2001), but Miles affirmed the factual basis at plea colloquy.
- Miles’s plea agreement included a broad collateral-review waiver; he was sentenced to five years and appealed unsuccessfully as to sex-offender conditions.
- Postconviction, Miles pursued a § 2255 motion and a first coram nobis petition, both denied; this opinion arises from denial of a second coram nobis petition.
- In the second coram nobis petition Miles argued actual innocence (his misstatement was immaterial) and ineffective assistance of counsel (failure to advise re: immigration consequences under Padilla and failure to investigate materiality); the district court dismissed as an abuse of the writ and the Tenth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Miles) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Miles is actually innocent because his false statement about S.K.’s age was immaterial | The age was immaterial to the visa/adjustment applications; thus no crime | The age was plainly material to K-1/adjustment eligibility; prior rulings rejected innocence claim | Rejected — claim was previously raised and rejected; new evidence insufficient to show miscarriage of justice |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to advise about immigration consequences under Padilla | Counsel failed to warn Miles of immigration risks, so plea was deficient | Padilla-based claim could have been raised earlier (post-Padilla §2255) and Miles appears to be a U.S. citizen so Padilla does not apply | Rejected — procedurally barred and meritless; Padilla claim could have been raised earlier and may not apply because Miles is a citizen |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate materiality of the false statement | Counsel failed to investigate facts/law that would show immateriality | The relevant facts were available and were litigated in prior proceedings; claim could and should have been raised earlier | Rejected — claim could have been raised previously and was inexcusable neglected |
| Whether the second coram nobis petition is barred as successive/abuse of the writ | Extraordinary relief should be available because of actual innocence and counsel errors | Coram nobis is extraordinary; claims raised or raisable earlier are barred absent cause and prejudice or new evidence showing actual innocence | Rejected — coram nobis barred here because claims were raised or could have been raised earlier and no proper cause or new evidence established |
Key Cases Cited
- McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467 (Sup. Ct.) (prior adjudication relevant to discretion over later habeas petitions)
- McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S. 383 (Sup. Ct.) (actual-innocence gateway requires showing that no reasonable juror would have convicted)
- Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (Sup. Ct.) (new reliable evidence required to support actual-innocence gateway)
- Denedo v. United States, 556 U.S. 904 (Sup. Ct.) (coram nobis authority under the All Writs Act; writ for persons no longer in custody)
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (Sup. Ct.) (counsel’s duty to inform noncitizen clients about deportation risks)
- United States v. Payne, 644 F.3d 1111 (10th Cir.) (coram nobis relief barred unless §2255 was unavailable or inadequate)