Whether 'in violation of law' in 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii) is limited to criminal immigration violations and does not include civil immigration violations

Petitioner, who was convicted under 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii) for transporting an undocumented immigrant in a manner that “furthered” her “violation of law,” transported such an immigrant three days after her initial unlawful entry into the country. At the guilty-plea hearing, the judge informed petitioner of what the judge described as the elements of § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii), including that petitioner had knowingly transported the immigrant “in order to help her remain in the United States illegally.” On appeal to the Ninth Circuit, petitioner challenged the voluntariness of his guilty plea on the ground that, at most, he only furthered the im-migrant’s civil immigration violation – because she was in the country for less than 30 days (which is not a criminal law violation) – and that “in violation of law” in § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii) means crimi-nal law violations. The Ninth Circuit rejected petitioner’s invol-untariness claim on the ground that, at his guilty-plea proceeding, petitioner acknowledged that he had discussed the elements of the charge with his attorney and stated that he understood the ele-ments – even though the undisputed facts are that the immigrant had been present in the country for only three days when peti-tioner transported her. The questions presented are: 1. Whether “in violation of law” in 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii) is limited to criminal immigration violations (and does not include civil immigration violations). 2. Whether this Court should vacate and remand for the Ninth Circuit to address the merits of petitioner’s substantial challenge to the voluntariness of his guilty plea because the Ninth Circuit erroneously assumed that petitioner’s counsel in the district court had explained to petitioner before he pleaded guilty that “violation of law” in § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii) means criminal immigration violations (when the undisputed facts show at most that petitioner transported the immigrant in furtherance of a civil immigration violation).