N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. R IC HARD NUW INTORE,

De fe nda nt-Appe l la

nt. No. 15-16796

D.C . No. 2:07-c r-00139-W B S-AC -1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia W illia m B
. Shubb, Distric t Judge , Pre siding A rgue d a nd Subm itte d De c e m

be r 14, 2016 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : KOZINSKI, B Y B EE, a nd N.R . SM ITH, C i rc u it Judge s. R ic ha rd Nuwintorea

p pe a ls the distric t

c ourt’ s dismissa l of his pe tition for writ of e rror c oram

nobis tha t he file d to va c at e his guilty ple a . W e re vie w the distric t c o urt’ s de n ia l of the writ de novo, Unite d State s v . Rie dl , 496 F.3d 1003, 1005 (9th C ir. 2007), a

nd now re ve rse and re m and for a n e vide ntia

ry he aring. 

# F IL ED MAY23 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.Nuwintore c la i m s tha t his trial c ounse l wa s c onstitutiona lly ine ffe c tive by
a lle ge dly fa iling to ad

vise him of the im m igration c onse que nc e s of ple a ding guilty to a c c e ss de vic e fra

u d with losse s ove r $10,000. To suc c e e d on this c la im , Nuwintore m

ust show tha

t (1) his c ounse l ’ s pe rform anc e fe ll be low a n obje c tive sta nda rd of re a sona

ble ne ss, a nd (2) the re is a

re a sona ble proba bility tha t , but for
c ounse l’ s a lle ge d e rrors, Nuwintorewould ha ve ne gotia

te d a be tte r ple a

de a l or gone to tria l. Se e Stric k

land v
. W ashington , 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984); Unite d State s v . Rodrigue

z-Ve g a , 797 F.3d 781, 786, 788 (9th C i r. 2015). 1. Taking Nuwintore ’ s a lle gations a nd e v ide nc e a s true , a s we m ust a t this stage of the proc e e dings, Nuwintore ha s suffic ie ntly

shown tha

t his c ounse l
wa s ine ffe c tive by

(1) fa iling to a

pprise Nuwintoretha

t he would not be

subje c t to
a utom at ic re m ova l if he ple a de d guilty to a loss of le ss tha

n $10,000, a

n d (2)
ne gle c ting to m e ntion tha t e ve n though Nuwintore

m ight a void a c tua l re m o va l, he would be c ha

rge d with re m ova

b ility an d suffe r a loss of his a sy lum sta tus. The im m igration c onse que nc e s of a d m itting a loss ove r $10,000 we re “ suc c inc t, c le ar, and e xplic it,” Padilla v . K e ntuc k y , 559 U.S. 356, 368 (2010), a s we ll a s “ virtua lly
c e rta in,” Rodrigue

z-Ve ga , 797 F.3d a

t 786–87. Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1158(b)(2)(A)(ii), B (i) (providing tha

t a sy l um sta

t us m u st be re voke d if the Attorne y Ge ne ra l de te rm i ne s tha

t the a lie n wa s “ c onvic te d . . . of a pa rtic ula rly se rious c rim e ” whic h
2inc l ude s a

“ c onvic t[ion] of an

a ggravat e d fe lony ” ); id. § 1101(a )(43)(M )(i) (providing tha

t a fra ud offe nse c a

using losse s ove r $10,000 c onstitute s a n a ggrav at e d fe lony ). Ac c ordingly , c ounse l wa s obliga te d to both e xpla in to Nuwintore the signific anc e of the $10,000 thre shold a s we ll a s tha t he would lose his a sy lum sta

tus if he ple a de d guilty

to c a using losse s ove r $10,000. 2. Nuwintore ’ s a l le gations a nd e vide nc e a lso show a

re a sona ble proba b ility tha t Nuwintorec ould ha

ve ne g otia

te d a ple a de a l with a d

m itte d losse s of le ss tha n $10,000 or would ha

ve gone to tria l . Ha d the gove rnm e nt offe re d suc h
a ple a a gre e m e nt, the im

m igration c onse que nc e s would ha ve be e n diffe re nt. Se e N ijhaw an v . Holde r , 557 U.S. 29, 42 (2009). Eve n a ssum ing tha

t the gove rnm e nt would ha ve re fuse d to e nte r into a

n a gre e m e nt with stipula

te d losse s of le ss tha

n $10,000, wem

ust c re dit Nuwintore ’ s a sse rtion tha t he would ha

ve gone to tria l to
avoid a utom atic re m ova l proc e e dings. Ac c ordingly , we m ust re ve rse and re m and for an e vide ntia ry he aring. 1 RE V E RSE D.

1 W e note tha

t Nuwintorem ight we ll re gre t obta ining c oram nobis re lie f. If the g ove rnm e nt c h oose s to try him , he m ay

suffe r the sa

m e or worse im

m igration c onse q ue nc e s a s we ll a s se rve a

longe r se nte nc e . The c hoic e , of c ourse , is Nuwintore ’ s, a

nd we antic ipate tha

t c ounse l will properly

a d vise him of the risks. 3Unite d

State s v . N uw intore No. 15-16796 Judge N.R . Sm ith, dissenting. I re spe c tfully

disse nt from

the m a jority ’ s c onc lusion tha

t de fe nse c ounse l’ s pe rform a nc e fe ll be low a

n obje c tive sta

nda rd of re a sona

ble n e ss a s pre viously de fine d by

pre c e de nt. First, unde r Unite d

State s v . Rodrigue

z-Ve ga , 797 F.3d 781, 786 (9th C ir. 2015), to m e e t the obje c tive sta nda rd of re a sona

ble ne ss whe n the de fe nda nt is a
non-c i tiz e n, de fe nse c ounse l m ust a dvise the de fe nda

nt of the im

m i gration
c onse q ue nc e s of a

ny c rim i na l c ha

rge s pe nding a ga inst thede fe nda nt. M ore spe c ific a lly , “ whe re the la w is ‘ suc c inc t, c le a

r, and e xplic it,’ tha

t [a ] c o nvic tion
re nde rs re m ova l virtua lly c e rta i n, c ounse l m

ust a d v ise his c l ie nt tha

t re m ova l is a virtua l c e rta inty
. ” Id. (quoting Padilla v . K e ntuc k y , 559 U.S. 356, 368–69 (2010)). In a ddition, de fe nse c ounse l m ust “ a d vise the c lie nt of ‘ the a dva nta ge s a nd disa dva nta ge s of a

ple a a gre e m e nt.’ ” Padilla, 559 U.S. a t 370–71 (quoting Libre tti
v . Unite d State s , 516 U.S. 26, 50–51 (1995)). Ac c ording to Nuwintore ’ s own a ffidavits, his de fe nse c o unse l spoke to him be fore the c ha

nge of ple a

he aring a bout theim

m igration c onse que nc e s of the ple a de a l he wa s pre se nte d. De fe nse c ounse l spe c ific a lly showe d him

the portion of the 

# F IL ED MAY23 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

1writte n

ple a a gre e m e nt tha

t sta te d, “be c a u se de fe nda

nt is ple a ding guilty

to a c c e ss de vic e fra ud with a loss a m ount ove r $10,000, re m ova l is pre sum ptive ly
m andatory .” This sa

tisfie d the re quire m e nts of our pre c e de nt. To re a c h this de c ision, them a jority stra y s from our we ll-e sta

b lishe d pre c e de nt, e xpa

nds the re sponsibilitie s of de fe n se c ounse l, a nd sugge sts tha

t de fe nse c ounse l m

ust disc u ss with the c lie nt ple a de a ls tha t we re ne ve r e ve n offe re d by

the gove rnm e nt. Our pre c e de nt doe s not re quire tha t de fe nse c ounse l
a dvise his or he r c lie nt

re ga rding wha

t othe r pote ntia l gove rnm e nt ple a de a ls (not
e ve r offe re d by

the gove rnm e nt) will a llow thede fe nda nt to a void deporta

t ion— or a ll othe r im

m igration c onse que n c e s. And e xpla ining thea dva nta ge s a n d disa dva nta ge s of a

pa rtic ula r ple a a gre e m e nt the gove rnm e nt offe re d to the de fe nda n t doe s not ne c e s sa

rily e nta il e xpla i ning thea d

va nta ge s a nd disa dva

nta ge s of e ve ry othe r possibleple a a g re e m e nt. Se c ond, the m a

jority fa ults de fe nse c ounse l for ne gle c t ing to m e ntion tha t Nuwintore would suffe r a loss of his a sy lum sta

tus pursua

nt to 8 U.S.C
. § 1158(b)(2)(A)(ii), B (i). Nuwintorene ve r a sse rts tha t c ounse l’ s fa ilure to inform him spe c i fic a lly a

b o ut the e ffe c t on his a sy lum sta tus a m ounte d to ine ffe c tive
a ssista nc e of c ounse l. Nuwintoredoe s a sse rt tha t he be lie v e d his “

politic a l a sy lum sta tus would pre ve nt de porta t ion or re m ova l.” C onsiste nt with this be lie f, an

2im

m igration judgegrante d his a pplic ation for withholding of re m ova l ba s e d on his pa st pe rse c ution a

n d like ly future pe rse c ution. I c annot join a disposition de te rm i ning tha

t de fe nse c ounse l provide d ine ffe c tive a ssista n c e to Nuwintoreon grounds hene ve r a sse rte d.

3