United States v. Cals Ifenatuora

MEMORANDUM

Cals Ifenatuora (“Ifenatuora”) seeks a writ of error coram nobis pursuant to the Ml Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (a), arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his counsel affirmatively misled him regarding the immigration consequences of his guilty plea, in violation of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 692 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), and United States v. Kwan, 407 F.3d 1005, 1014 (9th Cir.2005), abrogated on other grounds by Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 , 130 S.Ct. 1473 , 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010). The district court denied Ifen-atuora’s motion, and he timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

We review the denial of a coram nobis motion de novo, Kwan, 407 F.3d at 1011 , though we review any findings of fact for clear error. Hirabayashi v. United States, 828 F.2d 591, 594 (9th Cir.1987). As we have consistently held:

United States v. Riedl, 496 F.3d 1003, 1006 (9th Cir.2007) (quoting Hirabayashi, 828 F.2d at 604 ). Ineffective assistance of counsel can satisfy the fourth coram nobis requirement, Kwan, 407 F.3d at 1014 , but Ifenatuora does not meet his burden of proving…