In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 19-2588 JAMES O. ADEMIJU, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent-Appellee. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 18-cv-5583 — Robert W. Gettleman, Judge. ____________________ ARGUED MARCH 30, 2021 — DECIDED JUNE 2, 2021 ____________________ Before KANNE, BRENNAN, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges. KANNE, Circuit Judge. James Ademiju, a Nigerian citizen, seeks to vacate his conviction for healthcare fraud. He con- cedes that he filed his motion outside the one-year limitations period but argues that the statute of limitations should be eq- uitably tolled due to various extenuating circumstances. We conclude that Ademiju has not met the high standard for eq- uitable tolling, and we therefore affirm the district court. 2 No. 19-2588 I. BACKGROUND James Ademiju immigrated to the United States in 2001 and resided here for many years on a green card. In 2011, he became involved in a scheme to defraud Medicare of millions. The government eventually caught on, and, in September 2015, a grand jury indicted Ademiju on seven counts. Ademiju pled guilty to one count of healthcare fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1347, and stipulated to a loss amount of $1.5 million. The plea agreement stated that “Defendant recognizes that pleading guilty may have consequences with respect to his immigration status”; that he “understands that no one, in- cluding his attorney or the Court, can predict to a certainty the effect of his conviction on his immigration status”; and that he “nevertheless affirms that he wants to plead guilty re- gardless of any immigration consequences that his guilty plea may entail, even if the consequence is his automatic removal from the United States.” At sentencing a year later, the district court heard argu- ment from both sides about the appropriate term of imprison- ment. Ademiju personally and through counsel admitted that his ability to stay in the United States was not assured. His counsel told the court, “I’m not an immigration specialist … . But it’s my understanding that a sentence of—any sentence of less than one year—so if you were to sentence him to 364 days—I think the consequences for him in immigration court are very significant. I think at that point he would be at least eligible for a waiver.” These representations about the potential immigration consequences turned out to be incorrect, but no one in the courtroom appeared to be aware of that. The government had No. 19-2588 3 no objection to Ademiju’s counsel’s recommendation, and the district court sentenced Ademiju to eleven months’ imprison- ment. The court also ordered $1.5 million in restitution. Ademiju’s terms of supervised release required him to sur- render to the Department of Homeland Security for a deter- mination of his deportability. The court entered final judg- ment on April 6, 2017, and Ademiju did not appeal. He re- ported to prison on August 1, 2017. In late 2017, Ademiju claims that he asked his defense …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals