Bonilla: Failure to Advise on Immigration Consequences Violates Padilla

In a not-so-surprising but still significant decision, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Bonilla found that a public defender rendered ineffective assistance of counsel when he failed to advise a client of immigration consequences, even after he had been asked about it by the client’s wife.  While a positive case for those in the pro-Padilla camp, it is important to point out that the matter came to the Bonilla court on a motion to withdraw a plea under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 (d)(2)(B).  This rule allows for the pre-sentence withdrawal of a plea for “fair and just” reasons, which, as the Bonilla court noted, is a “liberal” and “generous” standard.  That being said, I would venture to guess that a court might have a hard time denying a habeas claim under the same facts.  The decision can be downloaded here.

One response to “Bonilla: Failure to Advise on Immigration Consequences Violates Padilla

  1. The Ninth Circuit Court vs. Bonilla is a very interesting case because immigrtion is such a hot button in our country.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s