A divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on Monday affirmed a lower-court decision that threw out a Venezuelan woman’s drug-conspiracy plea after finding her attorney gave "grossly inaccurate" assurances that she could "work out" her immigration status post-conviction. The ruling reinforces the Supreme Court’s 2010 Padilla standard, under which criminal defense counsel must provide precise advice about immigration consequences. For global-mobility professionals, the decision is a reminder that even minor criminal charges faced by foreign employees can trigger deportation if not expertly managed. Corporate immigration teams should ensure that any criminal counsel retained for employees consults with immigration specialists before plea negotiations. Failure to do so can upend long-term assignments and expose employers to sudden project vacancies. The case also illustrates how appellate courts continue to police attorney performance in immigration-sensitive pleas. Multinationals may wish to keep a short list of criminal-immigration crossover experts in regions where they have concentrations of foreign talent. Although the woman’s conviction was vacated, removal proceedings remain possible; companies should watch for developments that clarify how post-vacatur immigration adjudications will treat similar cases.
Source: Law360
