United States v. Temitope Akinsade, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 15347

Akinsade, a Nigerian citizen, pled guilty in 2000 to embezzlement by a bank employee under 18 U.S.C. § 656.
His attorney advised that the offense would not lead to deportation, contrary to law at the time.
During Rule 11, the district court warned that felonies could have civil consequences, including possible deportation.
Akinsade was sentenced to one month in custody, three years of supervised release, and restitution of $8,000.
Immigration authorities detained Akinsade in 2009 and later charged removability as an aggravated felon based on the 2000 conviction.
Second Circuit later held in Akinsade v. Holder that the embezzlement conviction did not necessarily constitute a removable offense, remanding for BIA proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether coram nobis relief is appropriate for ineffective assistance claims	Akinsade argues the misadvice caused prejudice and warrants coram nobis relief.	Government contends the usual remedies apply and the district court properly denied relief.	Yes; coram nobis granted due to fundamental error and lack of adequate remedies.
Whether the district court’s curative deportation admonishment cured prejudice	Akinsade contends the admonishment was general and insufficient to cure misadvice.	Government argues the plea colloquy admonishment and acknowledgment suffice.	No; general admonition failed to correct specific misadvice about deportation consequences.
Whether the prejudice prong of Strickland was satisfied	Akinsade would not have pleaded guilty if properly advised.	Government asserts the plea was rational given the evidence and potential deportation risk; thus no prejudice.	Yes; there was a reasonable probability of trial if correctly advised, satisfying prejudice.
Impact of Padilla v. Kentucky on retroactivity and the case	Akinsade argues Padilla dictates different analysis of deportation consequences.	Government contends Padilla is not a necessary predicate for resolution here and retroactivity is not reached.	Padilla not necessary predicate to resolution; retroactivity not addressed on the merits.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (Supreme Court 1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (U.S. 2010) (deportation consequences as part of plea advice)
Hirabayashi v. United States, 828 F.2d 591 (9th Cir. 1987) (exceptional remedy requirements for coram nobis)
Denedo v. United States, 556 U.S. 904 (U.S. 2009) (extraordinary remedy constraints; asylum of core defects)
Mandel v. United States, 862 F.2d 1067 (4th Cir. 1988) (coram nobis limits and remedy hierarchy)
Foster v. United States, 68 F.3d 86 (4th Cir. 1995) (curative admonishment can eliminate prejudice)
Kwan v. United States, 407 F.3d 1005 (9th Cir. 2005) (deportation consequences and Article III concerns)
Akinsade v. Holder, 678 F.3d 138 (2d Cir. 2012) (immigration consequence and divisible-structure approach to removable offenses)