Plea Bargain Immigration Consequences in Michigan: What Non‑Citizens Need to Know

For many immigrants in Michigan and across the U.S., understanding plea bargain immigration consequences is critical. A plea deal feels like the safest way out of a bad situation. It's a promise of no jail time, a lighter sentence, and a chance to move forward.  But too often, that same plea turns into a trap. 

What seemed like a legal compromise suddenly becomes a one-way ticket out of the country. Years of hard work and lawful residency vanish overnight. All because no one warned you what that guilty plea really meant for your immigration status. 

The good news is, it may not be too late to fix the problem. However, the solution is technical and time-sensitive. It also requires a strategic and meticulous lawyer like Mark Linton who knows both criminal appeals and immigration consequences. 

In this guide, Mark bluntly and practically explains how plea bargains can lead to deportation and how to fix that with post-conviction relief. 

Plea Bargain Immigration Consequences: How a Deal Can Lead to Deportation 

Federal immigration law, specifically Chapter 8 of the United States Code, section 1101(a)(43), makes it clear.

A “conviction” for immigration purposes includes a formal judgment of guilt or a plea (guilty or nolo contendere) plus a judge's order of punishment or restraint on liberty. And getting a conviction means possible grounds for removal. 

The Immigration & Nationality Act (INA) makes many crimes grounds for removal, as per Chapter 8 of the United States Code, section 1227. 

And certain deportable offenses, like many controlled-substance crimes and aggravated felonies, bar most forms of immigration relief. 

This means that a plea to what looks like a state charge under Michigan Compiled Laws (MCL) 333.7403, such as a simple possession of a controlled substance, can be catastrophic in immigration court. 

Defense Attorney Obligations and Plea Bargain Immigration Consequences

Defense lawyers must inform non-citizen clients when a plea carries a clear risk of deportation. The U.S. Supreme Court stated this in the Padilla v. Kentucky (2010) case.

And if the immigration consequence is unclear, the counsel must, at least, warn you that deportation may follow. And if the counsel fails to follow this rule, you may have strong grounds to make an ineffective-assistance claim. 

And you may win your case on such a claim. However, the Strickland v. Washington (1984) case ruling says that you must first prove two things. First, you must show the counsel's performance was objectively deficient. 

And secondly, you must prove that the deficiency prejudiced the defense. This means there's a reasonable probability the outcome would have been different had there not been any deficiency. For instance, you wouldn't have pleaded and would have taken the case to trial.

However, the Padilla case ruling may not win you every old case. This is because the Supreme Court, in the Chaidez v. United States (2013) case, held that Padilla isn't retroactive on federal collateral review. 

This is especially the case for convictions that were already final before Padilla came into effect. And that creates a hurdle for older convictions. 

How Michigan Post-Conviction Relief is a Practical Fix

When a plea leads to deportation because counsel gave no advice or wrong advice, Michigan law offers a path to correct please bargain immigration consequences. This is through a motion for relief from judgment (also known as the 6.500 motion) under Michigan Court Rules (MCR) 6.502.

This legal avenue asks the court to undo a conviction or plea that was constitutionally defective. This could be when your counsel failed to warn you of immigration consequences or your plea wasn't truly voluntary. 

MCR 6.302(A) states that every plea must be knowing, voluntary, and understanding. And if you, the defendant, weren't warned of deportation, the plea may be invalid. Michigan courts recognize that a lack of immigration advice can render a plea involuntary and justify withdrawal.

Remedies of an Involuntary Plea

Once the court establishes that the plea was entered without full understanding, several remedies open up. Firstly, under MCR 6.310(C), a plea can be withdrawn after sentencing to correct a manifest injustice.

MCL 770.1 authorizes courts to set aside convictions to correct an injustice. And MCR 6.500 (and the rules that follow within that section) permit relief for constitutional violations like ineffective assistance. And when granted, this relief effectively erases the conviction. And it often wipes out the immigration penalties tied to it.

Secondly, there's the MCR 6.508(D) option. If years have passed, you may still be allowed relief provided you show two things. You must demonstrate a good cause for not raising the issue sooner and actual prejudice from the error. 

Good cause often means you never knew your plea risked deportation. And actual prejudice means you wouldn't have pled guilty had you known better. Michigan courts use this rule to fix old pleas that cause new immigration harm. 

Sometimes, the fix isn't just vacating the plea but re-sentencing or re-plea. MCR 6.429(A) and MCL 770.1 allow courts to correct an invalid judgment. This can, in turn, remove deportability tied to your sentence’s length. 

If the conviction is vacated, prosecutors may allow a new plea with proper advisals or to a lesser charge. This approach strategically avoids immigration triggers. 

Why Michigan Relief Isn’t Always Enough to Avoid Immigration Consequences

Despite a Michigan Court vacating your conviction, you may still get an unpleasant reception on the immigration side. 

Immigration authorities don't automatically treat every vacatur (formal nullification of a conviction or judgment) as eliminating the immigration conviction. This is because immigration law has a specific statutory definition of conviction.

The immigration law also has a long administrative history regarding when a state court action removes immigration consequences. This essentially means, there are times vacatur will remove immigration consequences and there are times it won't. 

The outcome depends on why the conviction was vacated and how the immigration authorities or immigration judge views the state action. A Michigan vacatur based on a legal defect in the plea, like an invalid advice about deportation, is quite persuasive to immigration authorities.

However, a vacatur based on unrelated rehabilitative or procedural grounds is less persuasive. And this explains why the drafting of the state motion and the legal theory you use is critically important. 

Common Immigration Case Scenarios Experienced by Mark Linton 

Mark Linton has handled numerous deportation cases and has observed three common scenarios. Let's look at three such scenarios and how he successfully wins those cases.

The first scenario is where a client pleads to an assault or domestic-violence charge under MCL 750.81 without immigration advice. They then learn later that the plea renders them removable or prevents relief. 

Mark's solution for this scenario is to use a post-conviction motion focused on prejudice and what the client would have done with the correct advice. 

The second scenario involves an old conviction (pre-2010) where the defense counsel didn't advise. Here, Chaidez’s issues may block a federal habeas claim. However, a state post-conviction relief and other state remedies can be pursued. 

Mark can challenge such cases under Michigan's broad “manifest injustice” standard using MCR 6.310(C). However, federal courts may treat Padilla as non-retroactive as per the Chaidez case ruling. 

Immediate Steps to Take If You're Facing Deportation Risk

-Don’t sign anything more and don't talk to the ICE without counsel. Immigration authorities will use your statements

-Collect your criminal file, which should include the plea form, plea transcript, sentencing transcript, discovery, any emails or texts with your lawyer, and any paperwork you signed

-Immediately write down what your lawyer told you about the plea. Words like, "Don't worry”, “You'll be fine,” or promises to keep you here really matter here. And your recollection is crucial evidence.

-Get your immigration status documents, including the green card, naturalization paperwork, travel records, and family records. These will help with demonstrating ties and possible prejudice. 

After doing that, you need to get a lawyer fast one experienced with plea bargain immigration consequences and post-conviction strategies. And that's where Mark Linton comes in. He's a Michigan appellate attorney with deep experience in both criminal and immigration consequences. 

He knows exactly how to challenge defective pleas and craft brilliant post-conviction strategies that actually secure your stay in the United States. 

Contact Mark Linton today if you want a lawyer who sees cracks in the system and excels at turning them into doors that keep you in the country you've fought to call home.