Whether a criminal defense attorney is required to advise a client of a permanent immigration re-entry ban under Padilla v. Kentucky and the Sixth Amendment's right to effective assistance of counsel

is whether pursuant to Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010), and the Sixth Amendment's right to effective assistance of counsel, a criminal defense attorney is required to advise his client he will face a permanent ban on re-entry where the adverse immigration consequences are clear in the applicable statutes, and the attorney has reason to believe that a permanent ban on re-entry would be an important consideration in the defendant’s decision about whether to enter a guilty plea. 2) Following an evidentiary hearing, the district court judge granted Mr. Aceituno’s petition for a writ of coram nobis, allowing him to withdraw his guilty pleas, and finding that the delay with resp ect to the filing of his petition was reasonable. The questions presented are whether the First Circuit erred in concluding the district court judge abused his discretion in finding the filing was timely under the circumstances, and in holding the district court judge abused his discretion in granting the writ. ii LIST OF P ARTIES AND STATEMENT OF REL ATED PROCEEDINGS All part ies are listed in the caption to the case. This case arises from the following proceedings: United States District Court, District of Rhode Island, (coram nobis petition allowed February 9, 2024) Aceituno v. United States, 132 F.4th 563 (1st Ci r., March 27, 2025)