Leonel Cervantes-Meraz v. Oregon

GOES HERE WHEN FINAL (I) Did the State of Oregon violate the Petitioner’s right to effective assistance of counsel guaranteed him by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the Padilla precedent by ruling that Counsels, Ms. Mitchell and Mr. Geiger, were effective counsel and had complied with Padilla? Counsels advised Mr. Cervantes-Meraz he would be deportable both prior to and after a plea bargain where the Petitioner subsequently waived jury trial and entered into a stipulated facts trial and was convicted of Attempted Compelling Prostitution of a Minor and Sexual Harassment. Both Geiger and Mitchell admitted in their testimony that they did not advise Cervantes-Meraz that he was eligible for INA 245(i) adjustment of status and virtually certain to become a legal permanent resident of the U.S. if, but only if, he went to jury trial and was acquitted of all charges. (II) Mitchell tells her client that she is an “expert”, Padilla, counsel but does not tell Cervantes-Meraz, as she later testified at the PCR hearing, that inadmissibility concerns are not any part of her Padilla analysis. Mitchell admits she does not know how an undocumented alien can become a LPR through a family Visa. Mitchell is aware that Cervantes-Meraz is married to a U.S. citizen. Did Mitchell and Geiger affirmatively misadvised their client by telling Cervantes-Meraz the best possible outcome for him with Immigration is to stipulate to the facts of Attempted Compelling Prostitution of a Minor and Sexual Harassment, which destroyed his pre-plea ability to become an LPR through a family Visa? Was Petitioner affirmatively misadvised by his self-proclaimed Padilla expert of the immigration consequences of his convictions because of Mitchell’s ignorance of family visas, of I130s, of 245(i) adjustment, and due to her failure to inform her client thereof and thereby protect Cervantes-Meraz’s pre-plea ability to change his status from undocumented to legal permanent resident of the U.S. if, but only if, he was acquitted at trial of all charges?