Farhane v. United States

Background

The court considered Defendant Abdulrahman Farhane’s request for a certificate of appealability, the Government’s response, and Farhane’s reply. A certificate of appealability is permission to appeal the denial of a post-conviction petition. The relevant petition was brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which allows a federal prisoner to challenge a conviction or sentence in certain circumstances.

The court had denied Farhane’s § 2255 petition in an order dated March 31, 2020. According to this opinion, Farhane was a naturalized United States citizen who pleaded guilty in 2006 to crimes arising from efforts to help send money to overseas terrorists after the September 11 attacks. He received a principal sentence of 13 years of incarceration and was released in 2017.

The United States later began denaturalization proceedings based on Farhane’s “no” answer on a 2002 naturalization application to a question about whether he had knowingly committed a crime for which he had not been arrested. The opinion states that the conduct underlying his 2006 conviction extended back to 2001. Farhane argued that his lawyer had not advised him when he pleaded guilty that the plea could lead to denaturalization and possibly deportation.

Arguments and analysis

In denying the § 2255 petition, the court had found that defense counsel had no reason to know the circumstances that created Farhane’s exposure to denaturalization. It also held that, because Farhane was a United States citizen when he pleaded guilty, the conviction itself did not present direct immigration consequences.

Farhane relied on a prior appeals-court decision involving affirmative incorrect advice about immigration consequences. He argued that reasonable judges could disagree about whether that decision distinguished between affirmative misadvice and simply failing to give advice. The court rejected that argument. It explained that the cited decisions recognized a difference between incorrect advice and no advice, and that the latter did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel under the authorities discussed.

The court stated that there was no reason to impose a constitutional duty requiring criminal defense lawyers to advise naturalized United States citizens about denaturalization, particularly not a duty that existed when Farhane pleaded guilty in 2006.

Ruling

Judge Loretta A. Preska found that Farhane had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. The court therefore denied his request for a certificate of appealability. This opinion did not grant or deny the underlying § 2255 petition; it ruled on Farhane’s request for permission to appeal the earlier denial.