Case Alert!
You may be able to regain lost immigration status... do not miss your last opportunity to remedy past ineffective assistance of counsel!
Oregon Padilla PCR (post-conviction relief) claims of ineffective assistance of counsel pre-dating convictions incurred March 30, 2010 or earlier must be filed by March 30, 2012. Oregon has a two year statute of limitations on post conviction relief claims.
Padilla's conviction was in 2001. The Padilla case itself states that the national standards that are invoked to lay the foundation for the principle that immigrants must be advised of the immigration consequences of their conviction goes back some fifteen years from March 2010.
In Oregon, approximately fifteen year or maybe seventeen year old convictions in 2012 can reasonably be challenged in PCR proceedings. The good argument is that they are actually timely, and not time barred because they are Padilla "dependent" claims, up until two years after Padilla was decided in March 2010 . That is, no one would have known to file such a PCR case based on reading federal law up until the Padilla decision itself was decided.
Are there many more cases out there that the "convicted" just do not know that they just might be missing their opportunity to get their legal permanent resident status intact or potential future status as a legal permanent resident preserved? Please email this alert or talk to friends or acquaintances who might benefit therefrom.
Immigration Consequences of Criminal Convictions
Potential Defenses to Deportation and Post Conviction Relief Caselaw (Caveat: an individualized assessment is necessary to advise any "alien" if "relief" from deportation might be available. This caselaw is not intended to be exhaustive or for any individual to rely on pro se if assessing potential defenses to deportability or the likelihood of prevailing on a post conviction matter).
Click here to view
Padilla v. Kentucky
Successful continuance motion creating stay of deportation pending litigation of Padilla ineffective assistance claim in the State of Washington court which proved successful. Continuance granted by the Ninth Circuit.
SUBJECT: IMMIGRATION ALERTS
Immigration cases and results of not having an attorney that specialized in immigration law. Mr Conry's written argument for immigrants follows:
The duty of criminal defense counsel representing an immigrant:
Here is a link to the case. Padilla v. Kentucky
State of Washington follows Padilla in the Sandoval case
Mar. 17, 2011 - 82175-5 - State v. Sandoval
Law Office of Brian Patrick Conry, P.C.
711 Willamette Building • 534 S.W. Third Avenue • Portland, Oregon 97204
(503) 274-4430 bpconry@gmail.com