Padilla-compliant immigration consultation for criminal defense counsel — pre-plea analysis, expert declarations, and CLE-eligible training.
.svg)
The passage of the Laken Riley Act, numerous executive orders, and Congress's allocation of $171 billion in new immigration enforcement spending have dramatically reshaped the landscape. The scope of mandatory detention now threatens a broad category of noncitizens — including long-term residents with deep ties to the United States whose criminal cases may trigger automatic, presumptively mandatory deportation.
Under Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010), criminal defense counsel has a constitutional obligation to advise non-citizen clients about the deportation consequences of a guilty plea. That duty is not discharged by telling a client they "may" face immigration consequences. When the consequences are clear — as they are for most controlled-substance offenses and many theft, fraud, and violence-related convictions — the attorney must provide accurate, specific advice. Failure to do so is constitutionally deficient representation.
The Tenth Circuit's recent decision in United States v. Aguayo-Montes, No. 24-4073 (10th Cir. 2026), illustrates the consequences. A criminal defense attorney told a DACA recipient not to worry about immigration consequences until after sentencing. The conviction triggered mandatory deportation. The Tenth Circuit reversed the denial of the § 2255 motion, holding that the attorney's failure to provide accurate advice was constitutionally deficient.
.png)
The founding partners served as primary trainers at EOIR — responsible for teaching newly appointed Immigration Judges the substantive law and evidentiary standards applied to criminal convictions in removal proceedings. Among the former immigration judges now in private practice, few also served as EOIR trainers. Ryan has also served as an ICE prosecutor, a federal AUSA handling major crimes, and an Army trial counsel. He provides expert declarations in proceedings involving the immigration consequences of criminal conduct.
Aliza Lopes Baker has done significant work on the modified categorical approach — the technical analytical framework that governs whether a conviction triggers deportation. She has drafted hundreds of Immigration Judge decisions analyzing these issues from the adjudicator's side.
Our attorneys have seen the consequences of inadequate immigration advice play out from the bench. They bring that perspective to every consultation.
Family law: mixed-status custody, divorce, and naturalization impacts. Employment law: evaluating hiring practices and employment eligibility. Corporate consulting: businesses with foreign national employees navigating enforcement exposure.
If you represent non-citizen clients in criminal, family, or civil proceedings and need an immigration analysis before you advise them, call us. An opinion letter from former immigration judges who have decided these issues in court carries significant weight — our experience and credibility on immigration consequences of criminal conduct can be a valuable resource for your client. The immigration analysis does not need to take weeks. For most controlled-substance and drug-trafficking charges, the deportability question is answerable quickly — and the answer changes how the entire strategy is framed.
.png)
