No. 18-14

Carlos Donjuan v. United States

Lower Court: Tenth Circuit
Docketed: 2018-07-02
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response RequestedResponse WaivedRelisted (2)
Tags: coram-nobis criminal-procedure-plea-bargaining due-process equal-protection false-document-employment humanitarian-exception immigration-deportation immigration-removal ineffective-assistance-of-counsel padilla-standard padilla-v-kentucky plea-bargain strickland-ineffective-assistance strickland-v-washington vagueness
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw SocialSecurity DueProcess FifthAmendment Immigration
Latest Conference: 2018-11-30 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the Petitioner was denied due process and equal protection when the court failed to allow him to withdraw his guilty plea under Padilla v. Kentucky and Strickland v. Washington, given that the guilty plea required his removal as an alien despite his eligibility to remain in the U.S. as a legal permanent resident

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED ~ I. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Cir: ; cuit, in review, sustained the Federal District Court Judge’s (FDDJ) denial of Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis to withdraw his guilty plea, and thus failed to allow the Petitioner to withdraw his guilty plea under Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010), and Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 688, under circumstances which the guilty plea statutorily required the removal of an alien yet unauthorized to, but eligible to remain in the United States as a legal permanent resident of the United States with employment authorization, under 8 U.S. C. § 1229b(b)(1) INA § 240A(b)(1) Cancellation of Removal and Adjustment of Status of Certain ; Nonpermanent Residents, alien whose U.S. ii citizen daughter will suffer exceptional and extremely unusual hardship, here suffering from the most extreme form of spina bifida, if her alien father is removed from the United States, and where it is impossible for the Petitioner, as Defendant in the criminal case, to have committed the crime of which he was ac_~ . cused and to which he pled guilty, because he . ; is not an employer, as an element of the crime, . .or in collusion with an employer, but rather merely used false documents bearing his own . name to obtain employment, and could not o have used the documents to “verify” his employment as that confusing, technical term is meant pursuant to INA § 274A(b), 8 U.S: C. ; §1324a(b), and thereby, as a practical matter, eliminating the INA § 240A, 8 U.S. C § 1229b(b)(1) humanitarian remedy from the . : law. The conviction was void on its face because with its several references, only an em; ployer, or employing agency, can “verify” and thus commit this crime, and, as the record iii shows, the alien only used false documents to obtain employment and was not in collusion or conspiracy with the employer to defraud : the government's Unlawful Employment of Alien’s program.

Docket Entries

2018-12-03
Petition DENIED. Justice Gorsuch took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
2018-11-07
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/30/2018.
2018-10-22
Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.
2018-09-12
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including October 22, 2018.
2018-09-11
Motion to extend the time to file a response from September 21, 2018 to October 22, 2018, submitted to The Clerk.
2018-08-22
Response Requested. (Due September 21, 2018)
2018-07-25
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/24/2018.
2018-07-17
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2018-04-30
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 1, 2018)

Attorneys

Carlos Donjuan
Carlos Donjuan — Petitioner
United States
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent