File Your Padilla Motions Soon

On March 31, 2010, the United States Supreme Court decided Padilla v. Kentucky. Justice Stevens wrote the majority opinion which stated immigrant defendants in criminal proceedings have a right to be advised of the immigration consequences of a plea deal if the consequences are clear. This decision is one of the best immigration decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court in decades. However, if history is our guide for these matters, time will only serve to narrow this holding as the Board of Immigration Appeals and the U.S. Courts of Appeals hear more cases based on the Padilla decision. One of example of this is the INS v. St. Cyr holding. In 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in INS v. St. Cyr that legal permanent residents convicted before April 24, 1996 could apply for 212(c) relief. However, subsequent case law has significantly narrowed this holding. By 2005, the Board of Immigration Appeals had narrowed the holding in St. Cyr to state that a statutory counterpart between grounds of deportability and inadmissibility must be present in order for an immigrant to be eligible for 212(c) relief. Matter of Blake, 23 I&N Dec. 722 (2005). In Munoz-Yepez v. Gonzales, the 8^th Circuit Court of Appeals decided that if the immigrant could have received 212(c) relief, he would be denied cancellation of removal for a post-1996 non-aggravated felony because the post-1996 felony barred cancellation relief. Munoz-Yepez v. Gonzales, 465 F.3d 347 (8th Cir. 2006).

This indicates that immigrants with criminal convictions with possible Padilla implications should file their motions to withdraw guilty pleas in the near future before the Padilla holding is narrowed by subsequent case law.

We have already filed one Padilla motion and have worked with criminal defense attorneys as they file their own. Please contact our office at 651-641-0440 if you would like Kim Hunter & Associates to assist with you with your potential Padilla cases.