Opinion ID: 4576560
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Kroytor’s reason for delay

Text: Kroytor divides the delay between his conviction and when he filed his coram nobis petition into three time periods and argues that there are valid reasons justifying each period. We conclude that the last period of delay was not justified, and, therefore, we do not address the other two time periods. Kroytor’s last period of delay began in late 2014 when he learned that his conviction subjected him to mandatory removal, and that he could avoid removal only by having his conviction vacated. Rather than filing for coram nobis relief upon learning this information, Kroytor waited for two years. He argues this delay was justified because he was unsure whether the rule we announced in Kwan was retroactive, which was necessary for him to have a viable legal basis to challenge his conviction. Kroytor is correct that it was uncertain in 2014 whether Kwan applied retroactively and that this uncertainty remained until we issued our decision in Chan in 2016. See Chan, 792 F.3d at 1154–55. But uncertainty in the law is hardly unique. Nor does it prevent petitioners from reasonably asserting a claim for relief. Cf. Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614, 623 (1998). If there is a reasonable basis in existing law for a claim—as there was here—a petitioner should raise it. Cf. UNITED STATES V. KROYTOR 11 Reed v. Ross, 468 U.S. 1, 15 (1984); see also Engle v. Issac, 456 U.S. 107, 130 (1982) (holding that “the futility of presenting an objection to the state courts cannot alone constitute cause for a failure to object at trial”). Indeed, in general, litigants may assert “claims, defenses, and other legal contentions [that] are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(2) (emphasis added). 2 Thus, we join the Third Circuit in holding that a lack of clarity in the law is not itself a valid reason to delay filing a coram nobis petition. See Ragbir, 950 F.3d at 65; Mendoza v. United States, 690 F.3d 157, 160 (3d Cir. 2012). The petitioner in Mendoza was similarly situated to Kroytor and argued his filing delay was excused because he could not have known his counsel was ineffective for not advising him about the collateral immigration consequences of his conviction until the Supreme Court decided Padilla. 690 F.3d at 160. The Third Circuit rejected his argument because its circuit precedent had long required criminal defense attorneys to provide advice about immigration consequences and the law being “unsettled does not justify a delay in filing a coram nobis petition.” Id. Indeed, Chan demonstrates the efficacy of this rule. Chan filed her coram nobis petition after the Supreme Court decided Chaidez, which cast doubt on whether Kwan applied retroactively. Chan, 792 F.3d at 1153–54. The district court held that Kwan did not apply retroactively and dismissed her 2 We have not resolved whether the civil rules apply to coram nobis proceedings. See United States v. Taylor, 648 F.2d 565, 573 (9th Cir. 1981). That issue was not presented in this case, and we do not decide it today. 12 UNITED STATES V. KROYTOR claim. Id. at 1153. We reversed, concluding that Chaidez did not control Kwan and that Kwan did not establish a new rule of criminal procedure and thus could be applied retroactively. Id. at 1155. The uncertainty that Chan faced was the same uncertainty on which Kroytor relies. It did not prevent Chan from reasonably presenting, and prevailing on, her claim, and it does not justify Kroytor waiting two years to file his petition after learning that challenging his conviction was his only option for avoiding removal. 3 For these reasons, we conclude the district court was correct that Kroytor failed to satisfy the requirements for coram nobis relief. We take no pleasure in reaching this result. The record reflects that virtually every attorney Kroytor hired failed him in some way. Before he was sentenced, Kroytor asked his defense attorney what his options were for avoiding removal, and he followed the advice given not knowing it was wrong. Once he discovered that his attorney erred, he sought more advice. It appears at least one of his attorneys made no effort to help him. He followed the varying, and incorrect, advice he got from others. And when Kroytor finally learned that his only option was to challenge his conviction, his post-conviction attorney did not act with the necessary expediency. Indeed, even after Kroytor filed his coram nobis petition, he had to discharge his first post-conviction attorney and hire a new one because no action was taken on his petition for a year and he faced imminent removal. We do not doubt that Kroytor was 3 At oral argument, Kroytor’s counsel also tried to justify Kroytor’s 10-month delay after we decided Chan by asserting Kroytor needed this time to gather declarations to support his coram nobis petition. This is not a valid justification where nothing in the record indicates that Kroytor was unable to gather this information sooner. UNITED STATES V. KROYTOR 13 earnest in trying to resolve his problem, but that is not determinative under the legal standard we must apply. 4