A lawyer advising a non-citizen client in a criminal matter has an added duty: to advise the client of the immigration consequences, if any, of a criminal conviction. Failure to advise that results in a deportable consequence or some other immigration detriment, such as inability to naturalize or exclusion, could be the grounds for a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel under Padilla that could result in the underlying conviction being reopened and vacated.

The US Supreme Court issues a landmark decision that could affect the reopening and reduction of criminal sentences if the alien was given poor advice or no advice on the immigration consequences of a criminal conviction. Notable is the concurrence (agreement) by Justices Alito and Roberts.

This is an actual question I received via e-mail:
“Is there an expiry date allowing relief if there has never been issued an NTA? My example is where, after a statement at a port of entry was given and a temporary green card with a one year validity was issued, an NTA was never received and [...]

In Parts I and II of this series, I wrote of how a case gets to immigration court and subsequently the basics of immigration court including what to expect at an immigration hearing. In Part III of this series, I would like to discuss the avenues for “relief from removal” when your case is in [...]

-Immigration Court Part II- Master hearing and Individual hearing
By Attorney Farhad Sethna, Copyright 2007, all rights reserved
In part I of this series, we talked about how a case gets to immigration court and the charging document called the “Notice to Appear”(NTA). In this article, we’ll continue to explore the basics of immigration court including what [...]

keep looking »