Zamudio-Reyes

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SOCORRO ZAMUDIO-REYES, Case No. 13-cv-03175-VC

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING PETITION

v. Re: Dkt. No.

M. E. SPEARMAN,

Defendant.

Assuming for argument’s sake that the petition is timely, that Zamudio exhausted his Padilla claim, and that counsel performed deficiently by failing to advise Zamudio that pleading guilty would prevent him from eventually applying for legal status in the United States, Zamudio has not raised any serious questions on the issue of prejudice. As is relevant here, for prejudice, the “petitioner must convince the court that a decision to reject the plea bargain would have been rational under the circumstances”—that “but for counsel’s errors, [he] would . . . have gone to trial . . . .” United States v. Rodriguez-Vega, 797 F.3d 781, 788 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing United States v. Howard, 381 F.3d 873, 882 (9th Cir. 2004); see Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984). With Padilla claims in particular, a petitioner can show that rejecting a plea bargain would have been rational by “demonstrat[ing] clearly that she placed a ‘particular emphasis’ on the immigration consequence of…