When there is no dispute that a guilty plea will trigger mandatory deportation pursuant to federal law, must defense counsel advise a defendant that the plea will result in deportation as a matter of law, or is it sufficient for defense counsel to caution that the plea could make the defendant 'deportable' or that it will 'probably' result in deportation?

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW In Padilla v. Kentucky, this Court held that the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel requires counsel to provide correct legal advice to about the immigration consequences of a prospective guilty plea. 559 U.S. 356, 368-69 (2010). If federal law is “succinct, clear, and explicit” about the immigration consequences of a guilty plea, then defense counsel’s duty to explain those consequences is equally clear. Id. at 368. In contrast, defense counsel need only caution that a guilty plea may carry a risk of adverse immigration consequences when federal law is unclear. Jd. In Padilla, the Court determined that federal law clearly required the petitioner’s deportation as a result of his guilty plea. Id. at 368-69. Defense counsel was therefore required to explain to the petitioner that the guilty plea would trigger his mandatory deportation as a matter of law. Id. at 360, 369. The question presented in this case is: When there is no dispute that a guilty plea will trigger mandatory deportation pursuant to federal law, must defense counsel advise a that the plea will result in deportation as a matter of law, or is it sufficient for defense counsel to caution that the plea could make the “deportable” or that it will “probably” result in deportation?