Dilang Dat v. United States

Summary

The Eighth Circuit held that a lawful permanent resident who pleaded guilty to Hobbs Act robbery stated a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel under Padilla, where his attorney allegedly assured him he would not be deported despite the conviction being an aggravated felony triggering mandatory removal. The court reversed the denial of his § 2255 motion without an evidentiary hearing, finding that the plea agreement's general immigration warnings did not conclusively rebut the alleged affirmative misadvice, and that the petitioner's strong ties to the United States and family circumstances supported a showing of prejudice under Jae Lee. The case was remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the ineffective-assistance claim.

Holdings

1. Counsel's advice that Dat would not be deported was deficient because his conviction for Hobbs Act robbery is an aggravated felony subjecting him to mandatory removal, and Padilla requires correct advice when deportation is clear.
2. Dat's allegations, if true, show prejudice; there is a factual dispute whether the general warnings in the plea documents and colloquy remedied counsel's affirmative misadvice, so an evidentiary hearing is required.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court erred in denying the § 2255 motion without an evidentiary hearing.
2. Whether counsel's performance was deficient under Strickland for misadvising about deportation consequences.
3. Whether Dat demonstrated prejudice from the alleged misadvice.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded