A flat-fee sworn declaration on immigration consequences — drafted by a former Immigration Judge, signed under 28 U.S.C. § 1746, for criminal defense counsel and prosecutors.
.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), the Sixth Amendment requires defense counsel to advise noncitizen 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 truly clear — as they are for most controlled-substance offenses and many theft, fraud, and violence-related convictions — counsel must provide accurate, specific advice. The duty is to tell the client that deportation will be automatic, presumptively mandatory, or practically inevitable. 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. The defendant asked his attorney about the immigration impact of pleading guilty to a heroin distribution charge under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Counsel said he "couldn't tell" what would happen and told the client not to worry about it "until he got to prison." The plea made deportation practically inevitable. The Tenth Circuit reversed the denial of the § 2255 motion, holding that when immigration consequences are truly clear, counsel must say so — and that counsel's failure to provide accurate advice was constitutionally deficient.
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.
A sworn declaration, signed under 28 U.S.C. § 1746, analyzing whether a specific conviction — or a proposed plea — triggers deportability, inadmissibility, or mandatory detention under federal immigration law. Drafted by a former Immigration Judge or former Assistant Chief Immigration Judge with direct adjudicatory experience.
This service is available on a flat-fee basis to criminal defense attorneys (pre-plea Padilla compliance), federal prosecutors (immigration impact analysis), and post-conviction practitioners filing under California Penal Code § 1473.7 or analogous statutes seeking to vacate or modify convictions on immigration grounds.
.png)
.png)
