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, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. SUN HWANG, AKA Sunny , De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 15-16334

D.C. No. 1:15-cv-00072-DKW -BMK 1:13-cr-01065-DKW -12 M EM O R ANDUM * Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ha

wa ii De rric k Ka

ha la W a tson, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d

June 14, 2016 Honolulu, Ha

wa ii B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge and C ALLAHAN a nd M UR GUIA, C irc uit Judge s. Sun Hwa ng a ppe a ls the d istric t c ourt’ s de n ia l of he r m otion for re lie f unde r 28 U.S.C . § 2255. W e re ve rse . W e re vie w a distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of re lie f unde r 28 U.S.C . § 2255 de nov o . Unite d State s v . Sw ishe r , 811 F.3d 299, 306 (9th C ir. 2016) (e n ba n c ). 

# FIL ED AUG 04 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

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

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

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.Hwa

ng ple d guilty

to a iding a

nd a be tting a n ille ga l ga

m bling e nte rprise in viola tion of 18 U.S.C . § 1955. B e fore Hwa ng ple d guilty , he r la

wy e r c onta c te d two im m i gration a

ttorne y s to de te rm i ne the im m igration c onse que nc e s of a guilty ple a . One attorne y

told Hwa ng’ s la wy e r tha t a guilty ple a unde r § 1955 would inva ria bly re sult in re m ova l, with no option for disc re tiona ry re l ie f. The othe r a ttorne y be lie ve d tha

t Hwa ng would bee ligiblefor disc re tiona ry re lie f. Hwa

ng’ s la wy e r c onve y e d

both vie wpoints to Hwa

ng, but hedid not sa

y whic h vie wpoint he be lie ve d to be c orre c t. R a the r, in his words, he “ ne ve r gave M s. Hwa

ng a ny im m igration a dvic e in re ga

rd to he r c a se . ” Hwa

ng ple d guilty without a ple a a gre e m e nt a

nd wa s late r se nte nc e d to thre e y e ars of proba tion. Afte r se nte nc ing, the De pa rtm e nt of Hom e la

nd Se c urity

initia te d re m ova l proc e e dings. An im

m i gration judgede te rm ine d tha t Hwa ng ha d be e n c onvic te d of an a g grav a te d fe lony , re quiring re m ova l a nd re nde ring Hwa

ng ine ligiblefor disc re tiona

ry re lie f. Hwa

n g brought a m otion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 2255 to se t a side he r guilty ple a , a lle ging ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c ounse l unde r Padilla v . K e ntuc k y , 559 U.S. 356 (2010). She a lle ge s tha

t she would not ha

ve ple d guilty

if he r la wy e r ha d c orre c tly a dvise d he r of the im m igration c onse que n c e s of doing so.

2I

“ B e fore de c iding whe the r to ple a d guilty , a de fe nda nt is e ntitle d to ‘ the e ffe c tive a s sista

n c e of c om

pe te nt c ounse l.’ ” Padilla , 559 U.S. a t 364 (quoting Mc M a nn v . Ric hardson , 397 U.S. 759, 771 (1970)). To suc c e e d on a n ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c ounse l c la im , “ the de fe n da nt m u s t show tha

t c ounse l’ s re pre se ntation fe ll be l ow a n obje c tive sta

nda rd of re a sona

ble ne ss.” Stric k

land v . W ashington , 466 U.S. 668, 689 (1984). In a ddition, “ [t] he de fe n da

nt m u st show that the re is a re a sona ble proba bility tha t, but for c o unse l’ s unprofe ssiona l e rrors, the re sult of theproc e e ding would ha ve be e n diffe re nt.” Id. at 694. W he n a c rim i na l de fe nda

nt is not a c itiz e n, attorne y s ha

ve a duty to inform the i r c l ie n ts of the im

m igrat ion c onse que nc e s of a guilty ple a . P adilla , 559 U.S. a t 368. To c om

ply with theSixth Am e ndm e n t, attorne y s m u st “ a dvise a nonc itiz e n c lie nt tha t pe nding c rim ina l c h arge s m ay c arry a risk of a dve rse im

m igration c onse q ue nc e s” whe n

the im m igration “ c onse que nc e s of a pa rtic ula r ple a are unc le ar or unc e rta in.” Id. a t 369. “ B ut whe n the de porta tion c onse que nc e is truly c le ar . . . the duty to give c orre c t a dvic e is e qua lly c le ar.” Id. He re , the im

m igration c onse que nc e s of the guilty ple a we re c le ar. A c onvic tion unde r to 8 U.S.C . § 1955 is de fine d a s a n “ a g gravate d fe lony ” pursua nt to 8 U.S.C . § 1101(a )(43)(J). An a lie n c onvic te d of a n a g gravate d fe lony

is 3“ c o nc lusive ly pre sum e d ” to be re m ova

ble unde r im

m i gration la

w. 8 U.S.C . § 1228(c ). A nonc itiz e n c onvic te d of a n a ggravat e d fe lony

is not e ligiblefor c anc e lla tion of re m ova l . 8 U.S.C . § 1229b(a)(3). Thus, unde r Padilla , Hwa ng’ s a ttorne y wa s obliga

te d to providehe r with c orre c t a dvic e re ga rding the im m igration c onse que nc e s of he r ple a . 559 U.S. a t 368-69. B e c a use Hwa ng wa s not inform e d

of the im m igration c onse que n c e s of he r ple a whe n those c onse que nc e s we re c le ar, Hwa ng did not re c e ive c o nstitutiona lly e ffe c tive a s sista

n c e of c ounse l unde r the re quire m e nts se t forth in Padilla . As in Padilla , “ the te rm s of the re l e va nt im m igration sta

tute [s] are suc c inc t, c le ar, and e xplic it in de fining the

re m ova l c onse que nc e for [Hwan g] ’ s c onvic tion.” 559 U.S. a t 368. “ The c o nse que nc e s of [Hwa ng’ s] ple a c o uld e a s ily

be de te rm ine d from re a d ing the re m ova l sta

tute , [he r] de porta

tion wa s pre sum

ptive ly m andatory , a

nd [he r] c ounse l’ s a dvic e wa s ” not c orre c t. Id. at 369. The re fore , Hwa n g ha s de m onstra

te d tha t he r c ounse l ’ s pe rform anc e wa s obje c tive ly unre a sona

ble . Se e Stric k land, 466 U.S. a

t 687-88. W e re je c t the c la im

tha t Hwa ng’ s attorne y provide d e ffe c tive a ssista nc e by furnishing Hwa

ng with c onflic t ing a dvic e , som e whic h wa s c o rre c t. W

he n the im m igration c onse que nc e s of a ple a are truly c le ar, an attorne y doe s not sa

tisfy

4Padilla by

providing the

c l ie nt with a

se rie s of c onflic ting propositions–som e true , othe rs not. C onflic t ing a dvic e is not c orre c t a dvic e . II Hwa ng ha s a lso e sta

blishe d tha

t she wa s pre

judic e d by

he r attorne y ’ s inc o rre c t a dvic e . Hwa

ng e xpla ins tha

t, ha d she be e n m a d e aware of the de porta tion c onse q ue nc e s of a

guilty ple a , she would not ha

ve ple d guilty . Hwa

ng e xpla ins that she pla c e d a

signific ant e m

pha sis on theim

m igration c onse que n c e s of a c onvic tion: shea ske d he r attorne y re pe a te dly a

bout theim

m igration c onse que nc e s of he r c a se , a

nd she sought furthe r c la

rity on the e ffe c t of a

guilty ple a by se e king the a dvic e of im

m igration spe c ia lists. Hwa ng sa y s tha t if he r a ttorne y

ha d provide d c orre c t a dvic e , she would not ha v e ple d guilty . Unde r our pre c e de nt in Unite d State s v . K w an , this is suffic ie nt to e sta blish pre judic e unde r the se c ond prong of Stric k

land . 407 F.3d 1005, 1017-18 (9th C i r. 2005) (de t e rm i ning the re wa s Stric k

land pre judic e whe re a

nonc itiz e n de fe nda

nt de m onstra

te d tha t he pla c e d a “ pa rtic ula r e m pha sis” on the im

m igrat ion c onse que nc e s of a ple a ), abrogate d on othe r grounds by

Padilla , 559 U.S. 356; se e Unite d State s v . C han , 792 F.3d 1151, 1154 (9th C ir. 2015) (c onc l uding tha t K w an survive s P a dilla in re le va nt pa rt).

5For the fore going re a sons, we c onc l ude tha t Hwa ng ha s e sta

blishe d he r c la im of ine ffe c tive a ssista

nc e of c ounse l unde r Stric k land . Ac c ordingly , we va c a te the c onvic tion a

nd re m and to thedistric t c ourt. RE V E RSE D AND RE M ANDE D.

6Unite d

State s v . Sun Hw ang, No. 15-16334 C ALLAHAN, C irc u it Judge , disse n ting: I re spe c tfully

disse nt. I do not re a d Padilla v . K e ntuc k y , 559 U.S. 356 (2010), a s a lte ring thetwo-prong sta nda rd for m e a suring ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c ounse l se t forth in Stric k l and v . W ashington , 466 U.S. 668 (1984). First, the de fe nda n t m ust show tha

t c ounse l’ s pe rform anc e wa s de fic ie nt . . . a nd [s] e c ond, the d e fe nda

nt m u s t show tha

t the de fic ie nt pe rform anc e pre judic e d the de fe nse .” Id . a t 686. Hwa ng’ s attorne y , not be ing we ll-ve rse d in im m igration la

w , sought a

nd obta ine d the a dvic e of not one , but two im m igration la

wy e rs, a nd pa s se d the ir a dvic e on to Hwa

ng. It is not c le ar what m ore c ounse l should ha ve done . The Supre m e C ourt instruc ts tha t “ [j] udic a l sc rutiny

of c o unse l’ s pe rform a nc e m ust be highly

de fe re ntia l,” we m

ust m ake “ e ve ry

e ffort be m a de to e lim inat e the distorting e ffe c ts of hindsight,” and “ judge the re a sona

ble ne ss of c ounse l’ s c ha lle nge d c onduc t on the fa c ts of the pa rtic ula r c a se , vie we d a s of the tim e of c ounse l’ s c onduc t.” Id . at 689–90. Prope rly vie we d, Hwa ng ha s not shown tha

t he r a ttorne y ’ s pe rform anc e wa s de fic ie nt. C e rta inly , the Supre m e C ourt in Padilla sta te d tha t “ w he n the de p ortation c onse q ue nc e is truly

c le ar, a s it wa s in this c a se , the duty to give c orre c t a d vic e is e qua lly c le a

r.” 559 U.S. a

t 369. B ut I do not re a d this a s c re ating thee quiva le nt of



# FIL ED AUG 04 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S
. CO URT O F APPEALSstric t lia

bility whe n e ve r, in hindsight, the de porta t ion c onse que nc e s a

re “ c le ar.” R a the r, we m

ust c ontinue to a

pply the a pproa c h se t forth in Stric k land . W e m

ust first de te rm ine whe the r c ounse l’ s pe rform anc e wa s de fic ie nt. The c la rity of the im m igration c onse que nc e s is obviously a fa c tor in tha

t de te rm ination, but it is ne ithe r inhe re ntly

c om pe lling nor a

substitute for the de te rm inat ion of de fic i e nc y . He re , Hwa

n g’ s c ounse l did not le ave he r without informat ion. He m a de sure she unde rstood tha

t one im m igrat ion a

ttorne y thought tha

t the re we re a dve rse im m igration c onse que nc e s from ple a ding guilty , but tha

t anothe r thought she

m ight be e l igible for disc re tiona ry re lie f. Hwa ng’ s c ounse l should be

c om plim e nte d for his e fforts to providehe r with inform a t ion from

a lle ge d e xpe rts in im

m igration la

w . The subse q

ue nt de te rm i nations tha

t one im m igration a

ttorne y ’ s a dvic e wa s wrong a n d tha t the a dve rse im

m igration c o n se que nc e s now se e m “ c le ar” do not, in m

y opinion, re nde r the c rim ina l de fe nse attorne y ’ s pe rform anc e de fic ie nt. I would a ffirm the distric t c ourt.