Shen v. United States

Background

Weilian Shen pleaded guilty in 2006 to federal offenses involving trafficking in counterfeit goods and conspiracy to traffic in counterfeit goods. She was sentenced to approximately 19 months in prison, or time served. The conviction was treated as an aggravated felony under immigration law, making Shen subject to removal and ineligible for asylum.

Shen sought an extraordinary remedy called a writ of error coram nobis, which can sometimes correct a fundamental error in a criminal conviction when other forms of relief are unavailable. She claimed that her defense lawyer, Joseph C. Schioppi, gave her no advice about the immigration consequences of her plea and affirmatively suggested that pleading guilty would allow her to return home to see her daughter. She argued that, had she understood the consequences, she would not have pleaded guilty.

The court had previously found that disputed facts required an evidentiary hearing. The hearing took place on February 14, 2024. Shen testified with an interpreter, and the United States called Schioppi, who had no specific memory of Shen’s case but testified about his usual practices.

Findings of Fact

The court rejected Shen’s testimony. It found that she met with Schioppi several times with an interpreter and that they discussed the charges, the indictment, the plea agreement, and the guilty-plea process. The court credited Schioppi’s testimony that his practice was to tell noncitizen clients that a conviction or guilty plea could have immigration consequences, including deportation.

The court also relied on the 2006 plea transcript. During the plea proceeding, Shen confirmed that the plea agreement had been translated into Mandarin and that she had discussed it with Schioppi. When the magistrate judge asked whether she understood that her guilty plea could result in removal from the United States and could prevent her from reentering, Shen answered yes. At sentencing, Shen asked to remain in the United States with her daughter, and the sentencing judge told her that immigration authorities would decide what would happen.

The court found that Schioppi did not tell Shen that she would be allowed to return home or otherwise imply that she could remain in the United States after her conviction. It characterized Shen’s testimony as self-serving, internally inconsistent, and contradicted by the plea and sentencing transcripts.

Legal Analysis

The court first held that the petition was untimely. Coram nobis does not have a fixed statute of limitations, but a petitioner must provide sound reasons for failing to seek relief earlier. The court found that Shen knew in 2006 that her conviction could have adverse immigration consequences, including deportation, based on Schioppi’s advice, the plea colloquy, and her own sentencing comments. It found that the 16-year delay lacked a competent explanation.

The court also addressed ineffective assistance of counsel. That claim requires proof that the lawyer’s performance was objectively unreasonable and that the deficient performance caused prejudice. Because Shen pleaded guilty before the Supreme Court’s decision in Padilla v. Kentucky, the court applied the legal standard in effect at the time, including the Second Circuit’s decision in United States v. Couto. Under that standard, failing to provide immigration advice, without more, did not necessarily make counsel’s performance unreasonable, but an affirmative misrepresentation about deportation could do so.

The court found that Schioppi did not make an affirmative misrepresentation or ambiguous statement suggesting that Shen could remain in the United States. Although he did not tell her that her aggravated-felony conviction mandated deportation, the court held that his advice—that deportation was possible—was not objectively unreasonable under the law applicable in 2006 and the circumstances of Shen’s case.

Disposition

The court denied Shen’s petition. It directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment for the United States, terminate all pending motions, and close the civil case. The opinion does not state that the denial was with or without prejudice.