United States v. Chezan, No. 16-1134 (7th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Seventh Circuit US Court of Appeals?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Seventh Circuit US Court of Appeals. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
The defendant pleaded guilty in 2011 to aiding and abetting marriage fraud, 18 U.S.C.1546(a), and was sentenced to three years in prison. Marriage fraud is an aggravated felony if the defendant is sentenced to at least 12 months in prison, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(P); a noncitizen convicted of an aggravated felony is deportable, 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), and ineligible for cancellation of removal, asylum, or naturalization. The defendant unsuccessfully sought to withdraw his plea, claiming that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because he was not warned that pleading guilty would be virtually certain to result in his deportation. The Seventh Circuit affirmed denial of the motion, noting that one of the defense attorneys, an immigration specialist, had explained a possible, but barely viable, defense to the deportation that would inevitably follow his conviction, so the defendant had “full knowledge of the great risk that he faced of deportation,” and “actively strategized with his attorneys.” The court noted that the defendant, currently a fugitive, avoided conviction for mortgage fraud by pleading guilty to marriage fraud. He would have been likely to receive a longer prison sentence if convicted after a trial.
Download PDF
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 16 1134 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. MICHAEL CHEZAN, Defendant Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 10 CR 905 — Charles R. Norgle, Judge. ____________________ ARGUED JUNE 2, 2016 — DECIDED JULY 20, 2016 ____________________ Before POSNER and SYKES, Circuit Judges, and YANDLE, District Judge.* POSNER, Circuit Judge. The defendant pleaded guilty in 2011 to aiding and abetting marriage fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a), and in 2016 was sentenced to three years in prison. Not being an American citizen he is very likely to be deported upon completion of his prison sentence, because * Of the Southern District of Illinois, sitting by designation. 2 No. 16 1134 marriage fraud is an aggravated felony if the defendant is sentenced to at least twelve months in prison for it, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(P), and a noncitizen convicted of an aggravated felony is deportable, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), and ineligi ble for cancellation of removal, asylum, or naturalization. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229b(a)(3), 1158(b)(2)(B)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 316.10(b)(1)(ii). The defendant’s principal argument is that he received ineffective assistance of counsel in the district court because he was not warned that pleading guilty would be virtually certain to result in his deportation. Had he been told, he says, he would have forgone the guilty plea and gone to trial in the hope of being acquitted. And so he asks us to let him withdraw his guilty plea and take a chance on a trial. One of his lawyers, Justin Burton, was an immigration specialist. Thomas Durkin, his other lawyer, is not and relied on Burton to advise him and the defendant of the possible consequences for the defendant of being convicted. See Pa dilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 369 (2010). Burton pointed out to his client a possible—a barely possible—defense in the deportation proceeding that would inevitably follow his conviction (itself an inevitability if he pleaded guilty): that a marriage fraud violation must “relat[e] to document fraud” to be an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(P) and that he hadn’t committed document fraud. True, he’d made misrepresentations in applications for immigration benefits, but according to Burton “document fraud” is lim ited to the misuse of “passports, green cards, or other immi gration documents.” Burton had made clear to the defendant that the argu ment was unlikely to prevail—indeed was a “Hail Mary,” an No. 16 1134 3 assessment confirmed by our decision in Gourche v. Holder, 663 F.3d 882, 885 (7th Cir. 2011), issued a month after the de fendant pleaded guilty. Gouche holds that the reference to “visas, permits, and other entry documents” in 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(3)(B)(iii) is intended “only to provide a convenient shorthand description of § 1546 (prohibiting fraud and mis use of visas, permits, and other documents) rather than to limit the class of aliens deportable under § 1227(a)(3)(B)(iii).” See also Patel v. Ashcroft, 294 F.3d 465, 469–70 (3d Cir. 2002). As noted by the magistrate judge to whom the district judge referred the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel for a recommendation, the defendant had, thanks to lawyer Burton, “full knowledge of the great risk that he faced of de portation given the marriage fraud charges to which he was pleading guilty,” and “actively strategized with his attor neys to attempt to navigate the minefield that he faced in this regard.” The district judge agreed with the magistrate judge that Burton had not rendered ineffective assistance to the defendant. The government had backed up its marriage fraud charge with a charge of mortgage fraud, an aggravated felo ny in this case because of the amount of the loss caused by it. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(M)(i). Given the near certainty of de portation if the defendant was convicted of mortgage fraud, it made sense for him to plead guilty, as he did on advice of counsel. The plea might avoid deportation if as seemed pos sible the charge of mortgage fraud might be dismissed—and it was. The defendant argues that Burton should have warned him that if he pleaded guilty to marriage fraud he would have “no chance” of avoiding deportation. Actually “no 4 No. 16 1134 chance” was incorrect because Gourche v. Holder had not yet been decided. Moreover, not all aliens convicted of aggra vated felonies are deported. Some are overlooked by over worked immigration authorities and others released by court order pursuant to Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), which holds that immigrants admitted to the United States and subsequently ordered removed can’t be detained for an indefinite period of time. And some of them success fully plead deferral or withholding of removal because there is a serious risk of their being tortured or killed if returned to their country of origin. Our defendant has sought to elude deportation despite his plea of guilty and subsequent con viction and sentence by failing to report to the Bureau of Prisons by June 8, the surrender date set by the district judge. He currently is a fugitive. A trial was not an attractive alternative to the defendant’s pleading guilty for the further reason that juries rarely are sympathetic to noncitizen defendants accused of the offenses that the defendant in this case was charged with. They are especially unlikely to acquit such a defendant when the evi dence of his guilt is overwhelming. And he would have been likely to receive a longer prison sentence if convicted after a trial—defendants who plead guilty usually get a break re garding the severity of their sentence. Had Burton advised the defendant to go to trial and the defendant had done so and been convicted (as is highly likely, since he has failed to articulate any defense), we would doubtless be faced with an ineffective assistance claim, just as in the present appeal. The defendant would be no better off and quite possibly worse off as a result of that choice. No. 16 1134 5 The defendant quotes from Padilla v. Kentucky, supra, 559 U.S. at 368–69, that “Padilla’s counsel provided him false as surance that his conviction would not result in his removal from this country. This is not a hard case in which to find deficiency: The consequences of Padilla’s plea could easily be determined from reading the removal statute, his depor tation was presumptively mandatory, and his counsel’s ad vice was incorrect.” In contrast, Burton did not advise his client that “his conviction would not result in his removal from this country.” He advised him correctly that there was only a slight chance of that. The advice left the defendant free to gamble, if he wanted, by pleading guilty, which he did—and lost the gamble when our court decided Gourche v. Holder. But this was not Burton’s fault; he had warned the defendant of the risks to his immigration status of pleading guilty. We agree with the district court that Burton did not render the defendant ineffective assistance of counsel. The appeal also challenges certain sentencing enhance ments imposed by the district judge, but these challenges have too little merit to warrant discussion. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
