# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 7- 36 52

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Dil an g Dat

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Peti ti on er

- App el la nt

v.

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Resp on de nt - App el le e

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of Ne br as ka - Om ah a

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Jan ua ry

16 , 20 19
Fi le d: Apri l 1 1, 2 01 9

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re BENTON, MELLOY, an d KELLY, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __

BENTON, Circu it Ju dg e.

Dil an g Nhi al Dat pl ed gu il ty to ro bb ery in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. §§ 19 51 an d

2. He m ov ed to va cat e hi s co nv ic ti on un de r 28 U.S.C. § 22 55

, cl ai m in g hi s co un se l

was in effe ct iv e by m is ad vi si ng hi m ab ou t th e im m ig rat io n co ns eq ue nc es of hi s gu il ty pl ea. Th e d i s t r ic t co ur t de ni ed th e m ot io n wit ho ut an ev id en ti ary he ari ng

. Datap pe al s. Hav in g juri sd ic ti on un de r 28 U.S.C. §§ 12 91 an d 22 53

, th is co ur t rev ers es

an d re m an ds

.

I.

Dat, a So ut h Su da ne s e c it iz en , wa s bo rn in 19 93 at a refu ge e cam p in Ken y a

aft er hi s pa ren ts fle d Su da n. Adm it te d to th e Uni te d St at es aro un d 19 94

, he be cam e

a la wfu l pe rm an en t res id en t. Fo r m os t of hi s li fe, he li ve d in Om ah a, Neb ras ka wit h

hi s pa ren ts an d fiv e y ou ng er si bl in gs

. His fat he r is whe el ch ai r-b ou nd

, an d hi s m ot he r,

th e fam il y ’s so le pro vi de r, work s i n a fact or y

.

In 20 14

, Dat was in di ct ed on two co un ts o f H o bb s Act ro bb ery, un de r 18

U.S.C. §§ 19 51 an d 2, an d on e co un t of br an di sh in g a fir earm du rin g a ro bb ery, un de r

18 U.S.C. §§ 92 4( c) and 2. He pl ed gu il ty to on e ro bb ery co un t. The ot he r ch arg es
were d is m is se d. Th e d is tri ct co ur t s en te nc ed hi m to 78 m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t.

In an affi da vi t, Dat as se rts : Befo re pl ead in g gu il ty, he as ke d hi s co un se l ab ou t

th e p os si bi li ty of de po rta ti on . Hi s co un se l sp ok e to an im m ig rat io n s pe ci al is t, t he n
ad vi se d h e wou ld no t b e d ep or te d b ecau se he was a lo ng -te nu red lawf ul pe rm an en t

res id en t, no t an “ il le ga l im m ig ran t.” Afte r reject in g two pl ea ag reem en ts wit h st ro ng
de po r t at io n la ng ua ge , he acce pt ed a pl ea ack no wled gi ng “ th ere are or m ay be

co ll at eral co ns eq ue nc es to an y co nv ic ti on to in cl ud e bu t no t li m it ed to im m ig rat io n.”

His acce pt an ce was ba se d on co un se l’s as su ran ce hi s im m ig rat io n st at us wou ld be

un affe ct ed

. He le arn ed

, aft er his co nv ic ti on , th is im m ig rat io n ad vi ce was in co rrec t,

whe n h is m ot he r’s at te m

pt to ren ew hi s g reen card was d en ie d.

Dat m ov ed to va cat e hi s co nv i c ti on un de r § 22 55

, cl ai m in g hi s co un se l

m is ad vi se d hi m ab ou t th e im m ig rat io n co ns eq ue nc es of pl ead in g gu il ty. The di st ric t

co ur t de ni ed hi s m ot io n wit ho ut an ev id en ti ary he a r i n g

. I n a br ie f or de r, th e co ur t

fo un d he was ad vi se d of th e im m ig rat io n co ns eq ue nc es by hi s pl ea ag reem en t,

-2

-Pet it io n t o En te r a Pl ea o f Gui lt y , and co ll oq uy wit h th e co ur t at hi s ch an ge -o f-p le a

he ari ng

. Dat ap pe al s, a r g u i n g th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in de nyin g hi s m ot io n an d

ab us ed it s d is cret io n b y

no t h ol di ng a he ari ng

.

II.

Thi s co ur t rev ie ws § 22 55 -in effe ct iv e-as si st an ce cl ai m s de no vo , an d th e

un de rlyin g fact ua l fin di ng s fo r cl ear erro r. Hyl es v. Unit ed St at es , 75 4 F.3 d 53 0, 53 4
(8 th Ci r. 20 14 ). “ A di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of an ev id e n t i a r y h e ari ng on a § 22 55

m ot io n m ay be rev ers ed on ly fo r an ab us e of di sc ret io n.” Id

. To es ta bl is h in effe ct iv e

as si st an ce du rin g pl ea ne go ti at io ns , “ a de fen da nt m us t sh ow th at co un se l’s

rep res en ta ti on ‘fell be lo w an ob jecti ve st an da rd of reas on ab le ne ss ’ an d th at he was

pr ejud ic ed as a res ul t.” Ja e Lee v. Unit ed S t at es , 13 7 S. Ct

. 19 58

, 19 64 (2 01 7)

,
qu ot in g St

ri ck la nd v

. W

as hi ng to n , 4 66 U.S. 6 68 , 6 88 (1 98 4)

. A § 22 55 pe ti ti on er

is en ti tl ed to an ev id en ti ary he ari ng “ [u ]nle ss th e m ot io n an d th e fil es an d reco rd s of

th e cas e co nc lu si ve ly sh ow th at th e [p et it io ne r] is en ti tl ed to no rel ie f.” 28 U.S.C. §

22 55 (b)

. “ A p et it io ne r’s al le ga ti on s m us t be acce pt ed as tru e an d a he ari n g sh ou ld

be he ld un le ss th ey a r e co nt rad ic te d by th e reco rd

, in he ren tl y in cred ib le

, m erel y

co nc lu si on s, or w o u l d n o t e n ti tl e th e pe ti ti on er to rel ie f.” Gar ci a v. Unit ed St at es , 67 9 F .3d 10 13 , 10 14 (8t h C ir. 2 01 2)

.

A.

Est ab li sh in g St ri ckl an d de fic ie nc y req ui res sh owi ng “ th at co un se l m ad e erro rs

so se rio us th at co un se l was no t fu nc ti on in g as th e ‘cou ns el ’ gu aran te ed th e de fen da nt by th e Si xt h Am en dm en t.” Whi te v. Ding le

, 75 7 F.3d 75 0, 75 2– 53 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ),

qu ot in g St

ri ck la nd

, 46 6 U.S. at 68 7. To pr ov id e co ns ti tu ti on al ly effe ct iv e as si st an ce,

“ cri m in al de fen se a t t o r ne y s ha ve a du ty to in fo rm cl ie nt s ab ou t th e po ss ib le

im m ig rat io n co ns eq ue nc es of pl ead in g gu il ty.” Ba ra ja s v. Uni te d S

ta te s , 87 7 F .3d

37 8, 38 0 (8 th Cir

. 20 17 ), ci ti ng Pad il la v. Unit ed St at es , 55 9 U.S. 35 6, 37 4 (20 10 ).

-3

-[W] he n th e de po rta ti on co ns eq ue nc e is tru ly cl ear,

. . . th e du ty to gi ve co rrec t ad vi ce

is eq ua ll y cle ar.” Pad

il la , 55 9 U.S. at 36 9.

Dat as se rts hi s co un se l as su red hi m he wou ld no t be de po rte d. Thi s wou ld be

de fic ie nt rep res en ta ti on be cau se hi s con vi ct io n su bjec ts hi m to m an da to ry rem ov al

. Hob bs Act ro bb ery (wit h a 78 -m on th te rm of im pr is on m en t) is cl earl y an ag gr av at ed

fel on y

. Se e 8 U.S.C. § 11 01 (4 3) (F) (“ ag gr av at ed fel on y ” m ean s a cri m e of vi ol en ce

un de r 18 U.S.C. § 16 wit h a te rm of im pr is on m en t of at le as t on e y ear, whi ch in cl ud es

“ an of fen se th at ha s an el em en t th e us e, at te m pt ed us e, or th reat en ed us e of ph y si cal

fo rce ag ai ns t th e pe rs on or pr op ert y of an ot he r”); Dia z v. Unit ed St at es , 86 3 F.3 d 78 1,

78 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 17 ) (h ol di n g Hob bs Act ro bb ery is a cri m e of vi ol en ce un de r

an al og ou s st at ut e), ci ti ng Unit ed St at es v. Ho us e , 82 5 F.3 d 38 1, 38 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 );

Unit ed St at es v. Fa rm er , 73 F.3 d 83 6, 84 2 (8 th Ci r. 1 9 96 ) (co nc lu di ng Hob bs Act

ro bb ery “ ha s as an el em en t th e us e, at te m pt ed us e, or th reat en ed us e of ph y si cal fo rce

ag ai ns t th e pe rs on of an ot he r”). The Im m ig rat io n an d Nati on al it y Act is “ su cci nc t,

cl ear, an d ex pl ic it ” ab ou t th e rem ov al co ns eq ue nc e fo r ag gr av at ed fel on ie s. Pad il la

, 55 9 U.S. at 36 8. Se e 8 U.S.C. § 12 27 (a )(2 )(A)(i ii ) (“ Any al ie n who is co nv ic te d of

a n a g g r av at ed fel on y at an y ti m e aft er ad m is si on is de po rta bl e.”); 8 U.S.C. §

12 29 b(a )(3 ) (an al ie n “ co nv ic te d of an y ag gr av at ed fel on y ” is no t el ig ib le fo r

can cel la ti on of rem ov al ) ; C h a i d ez v. Unit

ed St at es , 56 8 U.S. 34 2, 34 5 (2 01 3)
(ag gr av at ed fel on y co nv ic ti on su bje c t s a la wfu l pe rm an en t res id en t to “ m an da to ry

rem ov al ”).

Bec au se th e de po rta ti on co ns eq ue nc e is cl ear, “ th e du ty to gi ve co rrec t ad vi ce

is eq ua ll y cl ear.” Pad

il la

, 55 9 U.S. at 36 9. Tak in g Dat’s as se rti on s as tru e, hi s

co un se l pr ov id ed “ fal se as su ran ce th at hi s co nv ic ti on wou ld no t res ul t in hi s rem ov al

fro m th is co un try.” Id

. at 36 8. Not hi ng in th e reco rd co nt rad ic ts hi s fact ua l

as se rti on s ab ou t th is a d v i c e

. Lik e in Pad il la

, “ [t]hi s is no t a ha rd cas e in whi ch to

fin d de fic ie nc y : The co ns eq ue nc es of [Dat ’s] pl ea c o u l d e as il y be de te rm in ed fro m

-4

-read in g th e rem ov al st at ut e, hi s de po rta ti on was pr es um pt iv el y m an da to ry , an d hi s

co un se l’s ad vi ce was in co rrec t.” Id

. at 36 8– 69

.

B.

Preju di ce is a cl os er qu es ti on

. Dat as se rts he wou ld ha ve reject ed th e pl ea an d

in si st ed on tri al bu t fo r hi s co un se l’s m is ad vi ce. If tru e, th is sh ows pr e ju d i c e

. Se e

Ja e Lee

, 13 7 S. Ct

. at 19 65 (“ [W] he n a de fen da nt cl ai m s th at hi s co un se l’s de fic ie nt

pe rfo rm an ce de pr iv ed hi m of a tri al by cau si ng hi m to acc e p t a p le a, th e de fen da nt

can sh ow pr ejud ic e by de m on st rat in g a ‘reaso na bl e pr ob ab il it y th at

, bu t fo r co un se l’s

erro rs , he wou ld no t ha ve pl ead ed gu il ty an d wou ld ha ve in si st ed on go in g to tri al .’ ”),

qu ot in g Hi ll v. Loc kh ar t

, 47 4 U.S. 52

, 59 (1 98 5)

. Bu t, “ [c]ou rts sh ou ld no t u ps et a pl ea so le ly be cau se of

po st ho c as se rti on s fro m a de fen da nt ab ou t ho w he wou ld ha ve pl ead ed bu t fo r hi s at to rn ey ’s de fic ie nc ie s. Ju dg es sh ou ld i n s t e a d lo ok to

co nt em po ran eo us ev id en ce to su bs ta nt ia te a de fen da nt ’s ex pr es se d pr efer en ces .” Id

.
at 19 67

. Tho ug h th e reco rd la ck s ev id en ce su ch as an affi da vi t fro m pl ea co un se l or

th e al le ge dl y reject ed pl ea ag reem en ts

, su ffi ci en t co nt em po ran eo us ev id en ce

su bs ta nt ia te s h is cla im s.

Dat’s bac kg ro un d su pp or ts hi s ass ert io n th at he was fo cu se d o n re m ai ni ng in

th e co un try, whi ch th e Gov ern m en t do es no t co nt es t. Cf

. Doe v. Unit

ed St at es , 91 5

F.3 d 90 5, 91 2 (2 d Ci r. 20 19 ) (“ [Defe nd an t’s] hi st or y in th e Uni te d St at es , hi s fam il y
ci rcu m st an ces , an d hi s ga in fu l em pl oym en t al l si gn al [h is ] st ro ng co nn ect io n to

, an d

de si r e t o r e mai n in , t he Uni te d St at es .”), ci ti ng Ja e Lee , 1 37 S. Ct . a t 19 68

. At th e

ti m e of hi s pl ea, he ha d li ve d in th e Uni te d St a te s wit h hi s fam il y fo r two de cad es

. At t he ch an ge -o f-p le a h eari ng , hi s co un se l n ot ed hi s re qu es t fo r a p ris on pl acement

cl os e to hi s fam il y , du e to tra ve l di ffi cu lt ie s. The re is no in di cat io n of ti es to an ot he r

co un try. True

, he face d aro un d f i v e mo r e y ears in pr is on fro m a co nv ic ti on on al l

co un ts at tri al (if th e two co un ts ha d n o t b e e n di sm is se d pe r th e pl ea ag reem en t).

Howev er, “ de po rta ti on is ‘a pa rti cu la rly s e v e r e pe na lt y ,’ whi ch m ay be of gr eat er

-5

-co nc ern to a co nv ic te d al ie n th an ‘any po te nt ia l jail se nt en ce.’” Ses si on s v. Dim ay a ,

13 8 S. C t

. 1 2 0 4

, 1 21 3 (2 01 8)

, qu ot in g Ja e Lee

, 13 7 S. Ct

. at 19 68

. At th is st ag e,

su ffi ci en t ev id en ce su pp or ts hi s as se rti o n s of pr ejud ic e. Se e Ja e Lee

, 13 7 S. Ct

. at

19 68 –6 9 (d efen da nt de m on st rat ed pr ejud ic e fro m co un se l’s m is ad vi ce “ he wou ld no t

be de po rte d if he pl ead ed gu il ty” whe re “ de po rta ti on [was ] th e ‘det erm in at iv e is su e’

. . . in pl ea di sc us si on s,” he “ ha d st ro ng co nn ect io ns to th is co un try an d no ot he r,” an d

“ th e co ns eq ue nc es of ta ki ng a ch an ce at tri al were no t m ark e d l y h a r s h er th an pl ead in g” ).

The Gov ern m en t arg ue s th a t co nt em po ran eo us ev id en ce co nt rad ic ts Dat’s

as se rti on he wou ld no t h av e p le d g ui lt y if h is la wy er had pr op erl y ad vi se d h im . As

th e di st ric t co ur t no te d, he ack no wled ge d in hi s pl ea ag reem en t th at “ th ere are or m ay
be co ll at eral co ns eq ue nc es to an y co nv ic ti on to in cl ud e bu t no t li m it ed to

im m ig rat io n.” In hi s Pet it io n to Ent er a Pl ea of Gui lt y , he ack no wled ge d th at a gu il ty pl ea in “ m os t fed eral fel on y cas es ” res ul ts in pe rm an en t rem ov al

. And at hi s
ch an ge -o f-p le a h eari ng , he a ffi rm ed he was a ware hi s co nv ic ti on “ co ul d affe ct ” h is

im m ig rat io n st at us an d ha d di sc us se d th e m at te r wi t h h i s at to rn ey

. Howev er, hi s

co un se l’s al le ge d m is ad vi ce sp eci fic al ly un de rm in ed th es e eq ui vo cal warn ing s. T he y

in fo rm ed Dat of a ge ne ral po ss ib il it y of im m ig r a t i o n c o n s eq ue nc es

. The y do no t

ne ces sa ril y co nt rad ic t or co rrec t hi s co un se l’s al le ge d m is ad vi ce he wou ld no t su ffer

th os e co ns eq ue nc es in hi s cas e. Co mpa re Doe

, 91 5 F.3 d a t 91 3 (co un se l’s

m is ad vi ce— th at de po rta ti on was no t a m an da t o r y r e s ul t of th e gu il ty pl ea— no t

rem ed ie d where jud ge as ke d if defen da nt un de rs to od he “ m ay be de po rte d” an d di d

no t in fo rm hi m of th e “ m an da to ry co ns eq ue nc es ” of hi s pl ea to an ag gr av at ed fel on y ),

an d Unit ed St at es v. Ak in sa de

, 68 6 F.3 d 2 4 8

, 25 4 (4 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (“ ge ne ral an d

eq ui vo cal ad m on is hm en t” th at de fen da nt ’s pl ea “ c o u l d le ad to de po rta ti on ” was

“ in su ffi ci en t to co rrec t co un se l’s affi rm at iv e m is ad vi ce th at [d efen da nt ’s] cri m e was

no t cate go ric al ly a de po rta bl e of fen se ”), wi th Unit

ed St at es v. Fa zi o , 79 5 F.3 d 42 1,

42 8 (3 d Ci r. 20 15 ) (an y erro r in co un se l’s fai lu re to in fo rm de fen da nt hi s gu il ty pl ea

su bjec te d hi m to au to m at ic de po rta ti o n w as cu red by pl ea ag reem en t an d di st ric t

-6

-co ur t’s “ in -d ep th co ll oq uy,” bo th of whi ch “ m ad e cl ear th at [d efen da nt ] was wil li ng

to pl ead gu il ty ev en if th at pl ea wou ld le ad to au to mat i c d e p or ta ti on ”). The reco rd

he re is in co nc lu si ve whe th er th e pl ea do cu m en ts or di st ric t co ur t rem ed ie d co un se l’s

m is ad vi ce.

The PSR no te d Dat wou l d be su bjec t to “ Adm in is tra ti ve Rem ov al ,” an d

im m ig rat io n pr oc eed in gs wou ld co m m en ce up on hi s rel eas e. Dat acce pt ed th e PSR

wit ho ut ob

jecti on ; hi s co un se l affi rm ed sh e di sc us se d it wit h hi m

. In Abr ah a m v

. Uni te d St at es , 69 9 F.3 d 10 50 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ), th e de fen da nt co ul d no t sh ow pr ejud ic e
whe n “ th e PSR in di cat ed a li ke li ho od th at [th e de fen da nt ] wou ld be de po rte d if

co nv ic te d; [th e de fen da nt ] co nf irmed th at he ha d read th e PSR, di sc us se d it wit h hi s

co un se l, and un de rs to od it ; and [th e de fen da nt ] ne ve r m ov ed to wit hd raw his gu il ty pl ea.” Ab ra ha m , 69 9 F.3 d at 10 53 (al te rat io ns in o r i g i n a l )

. Abr ah am is

di st in gu is ha bl e. The re, th e de fen da nt cl ai m ed co un se l fai le d to “ ad vi se hi m th at th e

of fen se ‘virt ua ll y en su red ’ de po rta ti on .” Id

. Bec au se th e PSR rem ed ie d an y fai lu re by “ cl ear ly ind ic at [ing ] hi s of fen se ren de red hi m de po rta bl e,” th ere was no reas on ab le

pr ob ab il it y th at th e res ul t of th e pr oc eed in g wou ld ha ve be en di ffer en t if co un se l ha d

“ ad vi se d hi m of th e im m ig rat io n co ns eq u e n c e s of pl ead in g gu il ty.” Se e id

. , ci ti ng

Pad il la

, 55 9 U.S. at 36 6. Here, Dat as se rts co u n s e l mi s ad vi se d he wou ld no t be

de po rte d. The PSR do es no t ne ces sa ril y rem ed y th is affi rm at iv e m is ad vi ce. Rel y in g

on co un se l’s ad v i c e, Dat co ul d ha ve reas on ab ly b el ie ve d he wou ld no t be de po rte d

in im m ig rat io n pr oc eed in gs

. The se as se rti o n s s h o w an ev id en ti ary he ari ng is

r e qu ire d. Se e Wi tt

ha r v. Unit

ed St at es , 79 3 F.3 d 92 0, 92 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 ) (“[T ]h e

ge ne ral ru le is th at a he ari ng is ne ces sa ry pri or to th e [§ 22 55 ] m ot io n’s di sp os it io n

if a fact ua l d is pu te ex is ts .”).

At se nt en ci ng , co un se l no te d Dat ha d an im m ig rat io n at to rn ey an d was de al in g
wit h i mm i g r a t i on ram ifi cat io ns

. The Gov ern m en t arg ue s th is sh ows he kn ew th e
de po rta ti on ris k. In Uni te d St at es v. Rami re z- Ji men ez , 90 7 F.3 d 10 91 (8 th Ci r. 20 18 ),

an in effe ct iv e-as si st an ce cl ai m fai le d be cau se th e de fen da nt “sur el y kn ew”

-7

-de po rta ti on was li ke ly ba se d o n t he di st ric t co ur t’s an d co un se l’s ad vi ce at th e

ch an ge -o f-p le a he ari ng , “ [c]om bi ne d wit h wha t [th e de fen da n t ] a l r e ad y kn ew fro m

hi s IC E cus to dy an d pri or de al in gs wit h i m m ig rat io n o ffi ci al s.” Ra m ir ez -J im enez , 90 7 F.3 d at 10 94

. Dat, ho wev er, was no t in ICE cu st od y du rin g th is cas e. The sc op e

of hi s im m ig rat io n at to rn ey ’s rep res en ta ti on is no t in th e reco rd

, le t al on e th e ad vi ce,

if an y

. He as se rts hi s pl ea co un se l affi rm at iv el y m is ad vi se d hi m , an d th ere is a fact ua l

di sp ut e whe th er th at m is ad vi ce was rem ed ie d. Unl ik e in Rami re z- Ji men ez , th e reco rd

he re i s i nc on cl us iv e whe th er Dat “ su rel y kn ew” d ep or ta ti on was l ik el y

.

Th e r e c o r d d o es no t co nc lu si ve ly sh ow th at Dat is en ti tl ed to no rel ie f. The

di st ric t co ur t th us ab us ed it s di sc ret io n by de nyin g rel ie f wit ho ut a n e vi de nt ia ry
he ari ng

. Thi s co ur t rem an ds fo r an ev id en ti ary he ari ng on Dat’s in effe ct iv eas si st an ce cl ai m

. 1

* * * * * * *

The jud gm en t is rev ers ed

, an d th e cas e rem an de d fo r p r o ceed in gs co ns is te nt

wit h t hi s o pi ni on

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

Dat’s m ot io n t o s up pl em en t t he reco rd is de ni ed as m oo t. 1

-8

-