Immigration Consequences of Criminal Conviction in Michigan | How Non-Citizens Can Overturn a Conviction

How the Immigration Consequences of Criminal Conviction Affect Your Michigan Case

When you're not a U.S. citizen, a Michigan criminal conviction does more than threaten your record. It creates uncertainty about your future in America. 

A plea may have been taken years ago. A conviction might seem minor, and a sentence can feel manageable. But they can suddenly trigger the harsh reality of deportation, denial of re-entry, or even loss of lawful status.

In Michigan, immigrants fighting to overturn a conviction are navigating two systems at once, the criminal justice system and the immigration system. And when these systems collide, even a small mistake can close the very doors you're trying to open.

Understanding the immigration consequences of a criminal conviction is essential because even minor Michigan offenses can trigger deportation, loss of status, or denial of re-entry.

Mark Linton, a distinguished appellate attorney focused on Michigan post-conviction relief, sees these missteps every day.

Some are procedural. Some are strategic. And some are rooted in fear or misunderstanding. But all of them can destroy an immigrant's chance to stay in the country.

This guide breaks down the most common and most damaging mistakes immigrants make when trying to overturn a conviction in Michigan. It also includes how Michigan courts treat these issues and the legal tools available to fix them.

1. Waiting Too Long to Challenge a Conviction and Its Immigration Consequences

Time is the enemy of post-conviction relief. And immigrants often wait until removal proceedings start before seeking help. And by then, many legal opportunities have already narrowed. 

Michigan Court Rule (MCR) 6.429 states that defendants have limited time to correct invalid sentences. And under MCR 6.500 and sections that follow, motions for relief from judgment must meet strict filing and procedural requirements. 

A motion for a new trial under MCR 6.431 can sometimes be filed within specific windows. However, the rule is unforgiving once judgments become final. 

Delays are fatal because records may be lost or become harder to obtain, evidence may go stale, and witnesses might disappear or forget crucial details. Also, some errors can no longer be raised once appeal deadlines pass. 

In the People v. Clark (2007) case, the Michigan Court of Appeals emphasized on time. It said that missing statutory deadlines even by a short period can foreclose relief unless a clear exception applies. And for immigrants, missing a deadline often means missing the chance to stop removal proceedings. 

2. Thinking the Immigration Consequences of Criminal Conviction Don’t Matter in Michigan Courts

Many immigrants believe Michigan judges “don't care” about deportation consequences. That's not entirely true. 

And the Padilla v. Kentucky (2010) case is a prime example. In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court held that criminal defense lawyers must advise non-citizen clients about the immigration consequences of a plea.

Michigan courts follow this rule closely. And when an advocate fails to advise a client that a plea could lead to deportation, that failure may be grounds to withdraw the plea under MCR 6.310(C). This rule focuses on plea withdrawal after sentencing to correct a manifest injustice.

Two cases applied the Padilla case ruling. This includes the People v. Fonville (2011) case, where the Michigan Court of Appeals vacated a plea because the counsel failed to warn the defendant of mandatory deportation.

The second is the People v. Brown (2012) case that established key standards for evaluating ineffective-assistance claims in Michigan. If your attorney never explained that your plea would cause deportation or destroy your immigration status, Michigan courts may allow the conviction to be revisited, but only if raised properly.

3. Filing the Wrong Motion When Facing Immigration Consequences of a Criminal Conviction

Immigrants often use the wrong legal tool for the problem they're trying to fix. And in Michigan, this is a costly mistake. The correct options available include the motion for a new trial under MCR 6.431. This motion is used when there's net discovered evidence or when the trial was fundamentally unfair.

It also comes into play when there was ineffective assistance of counsel or the evidence was improperly admitted or withheld. The second option is the motion to withdraw a plea under MCR 6.310. This motion is used when the plea wasn't voluntary, knowing, or intelligent. 

It's also applicable when the defendant wasn't properly advised or when the court failed to take plea-taking procedures under MCR 6.302. The third option is the motion for relief from judgment under MCR 6.500. It's used when the case has already gone through direct appeals or when the appeal deadlines have passed.

Using the wrong motion often results in immediate denial, delay that ruins chances for proper relief, and loss of credibility with the court. And this is where experienced appellate advocacy makes the biggest difference.

Many of these errors occur because immigrants don’t fully understand how the immigration consequences of a criminal conviction interact with Michigan post-conviction laws.

4. Believing that “Old Convictions Don't Matter Anymore”

Immigration law doesn't forget your case, ever. Even a ten-year-old Michigan conviction for a controlled substance, domestic violence, theft, or fraud can lead to removal proceedings.

Under Michigan law, however, old convictions can sometimes be attacked, especially on four occasions. These are when the plea was defective, the counsel was ineffective, there's new evidence, and when the conviction resulted from a structural error. 

The People v. Swain is a good example. Here, the court reaffirmed that long-final convictions may be revisited when a defendant shows a constitutional violation. And this violation undermined the reliability of the judgment.

5. Not Using Michigan Compiled Laws That Could Reduce Immigration Consequences of Criminal Conviction

Michigan criminal statutes contain tools that can help immigrants. This is especially the case in plea and sentencing contexts. One such example is MCL 769.4a, which handles domestic violence deferral. This statute allows certain first-time domestic violence offenders to receive a dismissal after probation.

Many immigrants don't know this option exists. And others plead guilty without their attorney negotiating a 769.4a deferral. And this could prevent a deportable conviction. 

The second example is MCL 333.7411, which handles drug deferral. With this statute, first-time drug possession offenders can receive probation and dismissal.

A 7411 disposition is often not treated as a conviction for immigration purposes if handled correctly. The third example is MCL 771.1, which addresses a delayed sentence. This statute allows the court to delay sentencing and later dismiss the case in certain situations.

Immigrants often try to overturn their conviction without first checking whether a statutory deferral could have protected them in the first place. Also, they don't check whether the court failed to offer it.

If your attorney never explained these options, you may have strong grounds for relief. 

6. Relying Only on an Immigration Attorney When Criminal Conviction Consequences Control Your Case

An immigration lawyer is good for removal defense, but they can't undo a Michigan conviction. And immigration judges can't reopen your Michigan case. Only Michigan courts can. 

When you only rely on your immigration lawyer to handle everything, you miss Michigan motion deadlines. You also file incorrect Michigan motions and misunderstand how Michigan Court Rules apply.

Moreover, you end up relying on federal immigration law arguments that Michigan judges can't consider. Reversing a conviction requires Michigan appellate experience, not immigration experience. 

And the right approach is both lawyers working together, not one doing the other's job.

7. Not Gathering Evidence Needed to Challenge the Immigration Consequences of a Criminal Conviction

When trying to overturn a Michigan conviction, you need strong, correct evidence. Essential evidence includes affidavits, plea transcripts (which are critical under MCR 6.302), and counsel's performance records. 

ICE paperwork showing deportation consequences and newly discovered evidence under MCR 6.431(B) are also part of essential evidence. In the People v. Johnson (2018) case, the Michigan Supreme Court stressed the importance of developing a full factual record when asserting constitutional claims. 

Without the evidence, courts won't reopen a case, no matter how unfair the conviction feels. 

8. Trying to Fix Everything Alone

Michigan post-conviction law is complex. Immigration law is also very intricate. And when the two meet, the stakes are life-altering. Many immigrants try to file their own motions, use templates found online, and trust jailhouse advice.

They also submit handwritten petitions without legal citations, contact the wrong court, or appeal to the wrong level of the Michigan judiciary. And these attempts often result in procedural rejection. And it's not because the claim lacked substance, but because the paperwork was defective. 

And once the court denies a motion that's improperly filed, fixing that mistake becomes harder. 

When the immigration consequences of a criminal conviction threaten your ability to remain in the U.S., choosing the correct Michigan post-conviction strategy becomes life-changing.

A Michigan conviction won't apologize, soften, or disappear. But Mark Linton knows how to strip it down, expose its faults, and rebuild your standing from the rubble. Contact Mark Linton today before time and law close every door.