United States v. Tiburcio Ramirez-Jimenez, 907 F.3d 1091

Ramirez-Jimenez, a Guatemalan national, was encountered by Border Patrol after illegal entry (2011) and later detained by ICE following state convictions and immigration-related investigations.
In May 2017 he was charged federally with unlawful use of identification documents (18 U.S.C. § 1546(a)).
At a June 20, 2017 change-of-plea hearing, the magistrate judge informed him that his plea could lead to deportation and could affect reentry and citizenship; Ramirez-Jimenez acknowledged prior discussion with counsel about deportation risk.
The district court accepted his guilty plea and later sentenced him to time served (128 days) and three years’ supervised release, then remanded him to ICE custody.
On appeal he claimed ineffective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment (Padilla v. Kentucky) for allegedly failing to inform him that the conviction would definitely cause mandatory deportation and make him ineligible for relief.
The Eighth Circuit concluded the record showed counsel and the court warned he may be deported and that deportation was likely given his ICE custody; therefore Padilla’s requirements were met and the ineffective-assistance claim failed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for not advising that the guilty plea carried deportation consequences	Ramirez-Jimenez: counsel only said he "may be deported," failing to advise that deportation was certain and that he was ineligible for relief	Government: counsel and the court advised deportation risk and likelihood; Padilla requires at least notice of risk and more detailed advice only when consequences are clear	Held: No ineffective assistance; counsel and the court advised deportation risk and likelihood, satisfying Padilla
Whether counsel had to advise that deportation was mandatory and relief was unavailable	Ramirez-Jimenez: needed explicit advice that conviction made him mandatorily deportable and ineligible for relief	Government: Padilla does not require counsel to state removal is mandatory or certain; complex immigration consequences warrant cautious, non-definitive advice	Held: Padilla does not require counsel to promise certainty of removal; claim based on that premise fails

Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (counsel must inform noncitizen client whether plea carries risk of deportation)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part ineffective-assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)
Bobadilla v. Holder, 679 F.3d 1052 (8th Cir. 2012) (discussing clarity of immigration consequences)
United States v. Thompson, 690 F.3d 977 (8th Cir. 2012) (ineffective-assistance claims typically litigated collaterally)