Opinion ID: 77281
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: application of the bia approach

Text: 65 After removal proceedings commenced, Mr. Alim filed a petition for a writ of error coram nobis in the Florida circuit court where he pled no contest to domestic battery. His petition specifically alleged that, at the time of his plea, the court did not advise him that he could be deported. Mr. Alim's petition specifically mentioned Rule 3.172 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. 66 Rule 3.172(c)(8) requires that a court accepting a plea inform the defendant that if he or she is not a United States citizen, the plea may subject him or her to deportation... Where the defendant proves he has been prejudiced, a court's failure to inform him of this potential consequence renders the plea void as involuntary. See, e.g., Peart v. Florida, 756 So.2d 42, 45-46 (Fla.2000); Marriott v. Florida, 605 So.2d 985, 987-88 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). A petition for writ of error coram nobis is the method by which an out-of-custody criminal defendant in Florida can vacate such an involuntary plea. See Peart, 756 So.2d at 45-46; Florida v. Seraphin, 818 So.2d 485, 487 (Fla.2002). 67 The state responded to Mr. Alim's coram nobis petition by filing a one-page memorandum asking the clerk to convert the disposition of the case to a nolle prosequi. The state court clerk subsequently filed a one-page document granting the state's request, thereby showing that the no contest plea was vacated. 68 The BIA's decision in Adamiak is directly on point. Like Ohio law, Florida law requires that a court inform a criminal defendant who is not a citizen of the immigration consequences of his plea. Like the defendant in Adamiak, Mr. Alim was not informed of this consequence, as required by state law. And like the defendant's plea in Adamiak, Mr. Alim's plea was vacated to remedy this legal defect in the underlying criminal proceeding. Mr. Alim's 1998 no contest plea to domestic battery is therefore no longer a conviction under § 1101(a)(48)(A). See Adamiak, 23 I & N Dec. at 879-880. 69 The only difference between Adamiak and this case is that the state court order vacating the defendant's conviction in Adamiak expressly noted the state law pursuant to which the conviction was vacated. The state court order here does not mention Rule 3.172. It merely mentions the prosecutor's memorandum, which also does not cite to Rule 3.172. Thus, it could be argued that while we know that the conviction in Adamiak was vacated to remedy a violation of a specified right, we may not know exactly why Mr. Alim's plea was vacated. Because Mr. Alim's plea could have been vacated for reasons other than to remedy a violation of Rule 3.172, perhaps it should still be treated as a conviction under § 1101(a)(48)(A). The government, in fact, raised this point at oral argument. 70 But we see no reason why we cannot look to Mr. Alim's coram nobis petition for the reason underlying the state court's decision to vacate the plea. That, in fact, is what the BIA and the federal courts have done. See, e.g., Pickering, 23 I & N Dec. at 625 (BIA turned to the affidavit of alien in support of his petition to vacate his conviction because the Canadian court's order did not reference any law pursuant to which the conviction was vacated); Pinho, 432 F.3d at 215 (If the order does not give a clear statement of reasons, the agency may look to the record before the court when the order was issued.). On this record, we have no reason to doubt that Mr. Alim's plea was vacated for the reason provided in his petition. This is particularly so because the state did not challenge or contest Mr. Alim's factual allegations. 71 In sum, the 1998 no contest plea was vacated to remedy a violation of Mr. Alim's rights under Florida law. Under the BIA's interpretation of § 1101(a)(48)(A), to which we defer, Mr. Alim is not convicted of domestic battery for immigration purposes. Because Mr. Alim was not convicted of two crimes involving moral turpitude, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) does not strip us of subject-matter jurisdiction over his petition. We now turn to the government's argument that we lack subject-matter jurisdiction over specific claims.