🛫 Illegal Immigrant Can Seek New Trial After Guilty Plea Leads to Deportation Order

In 2005, Alfredo Ramirez pleaded guilty to assault and battery with a dangerous weapon and received a six month jail sentence.

Alfredo is from Guatemala but he has been living in the U.S. “without being admitted or paroled” In other words, he’s an “inadmissible alien” under federal law.

For unknown reasons, he was brought before the Department of Homeland Security for removal proceedings sometime in 2018. Federal officials determined that he was not eligible for “discretionary relief” from removal due to his 2005 conviction. Accordingly, a federal judge ordered him to be deported.

Alfredo appealed the federal judge’s deportation order and filed a motion in Massachusetts district court seeking to withdraw his guilty plea.

In his motion, Alfredo argued that his lawyer in 2005 was ineffective.  According to Alfredo, his lawyer failed to explain that pleading guilty to “a crime of moral turpitude” such as A&B with a dangerous weapon could make Alfredo ineligible from “discretionary relief” in deportation proceedings.

The district court judge denied Alfredo’s motion and the matter was appealed.

The Appeals Court vacated the motion judge’s decision, claiming that criminal defendants who are in this country illegally must be fully advised of the immigration consequences of a plea.

According to the justices,

Under art. 12 [of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights] defense counsel must accurately advise a noncitizen defendant of the deportation consequences of a guilty plea or a conviction at trial. A noncitizen may request cancellation of removal from the United States. Cancellation of removal is available only if the noncitizen has not been convicted of an offense under Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude prohibits discretionary cancellation of removal. (Citations and quotations omitted.)

Applying the law to the present case,

The defendant stated in his affidavit accompanying his motion that plea counsel never advised him that ABDW could constitute a crime of moral turpitude and that admitting to a crime of moral turpitude would prevent him from “applying for discretionary relief in the form of cancellation of removal.” Additionally, although plea counsel’s notes reflect the importance to the defendant of avoiding adverse immigration consequences from any plea, the notes do not reflect that counsel investigated or considered whether ABDW was a crime of moral turpitude or whether the plea would deprive the defendant of the potential for discretionary relief from removal. (Citations and quotations omitted.)

The matter was sent back to district court for reconsideration.

To read the full opinion, click the document below.