United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT No. 21-3076 September Term, 2022 FILED ON: FEBRUARY 28, 2023 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE v. HUWIDA FADL, APPELLANT Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 1:16-cr-00211-1) Before: KATSAS and RAO, Circuit Judges, and GINSBURG, Senior Circuit Judge. JUDGMENT The Court considered this appeal on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and the briefs of the parties. The Court has afforded the issues full consideration and determined they do not warrant a published opinion. See D.C. Cir. R. 36(d). For the reasons stated below, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the order of the district court, entered on July 15, 2021, be affirmed. Huwida Fadl, an alien and a native and citizen of Sudan, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit money laundering under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) for her involvement in a scheme to steal more than $1 million dollars from the health office of the embassy of Kuwait. Because her crime is an “aggravated felony” as that term is defined in the Immigration and Naturalization Act, she must be removed from the United States. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(43)(D), (M)(i), 1227(a)(2)(iii). In her first appeal, Fadl asserted that her trial counsel, Atiq Ahmed, never told her that conviction would require her removal from the country. She argued that Ahmed was therefore ineffective under the holding in Padilla v. Kentucky “that counsel must inform her client whether his plea carries a risk of deportation.” 559 U.S. 356, 374 (2010). This court held the record insufficient to “conclusively establish whether the attorney’s performance was deficient or 1 whether [Fadl] suffered prejudice on account of the alleged deficiency.” In re Sealed Case, No. 19-3018, 2020 WL 13120193, at *3 (July 7, 2020). We therefore remanded the case “to the District Court to develop a factual record and rule in the first instance.” Id. On remand, the district court, Walton, J., held a seven-day evidentiary hearing during which he heard from multiple witnesses, including Fadl and Ahmed. Some weeks later, the district court denied Fadl’s claim. The district court found that Fadl “was aware that deportation was a consequence of her plea of guilty” and that Ahmed “made her aware of that,” and therefore held that Ahmed “did provide effective assistance of counsel to her.” Along the way, the district court credited Ahmed’s testimony that he had warned Fadl “that deportation would be a consequence of her pleading guilty” because “the crime which she was pleading to would be an aggravated felony, which would in fact make her subject to deportation.” By contrast, the district court found that Fadl lacked credibility because she made numerous “incredible” assertions, misled the court, and admitted to a grievous crime of dishonesty. Fadl appealed a second time. The district court having ruled in the first instance after an evidentiary hearing, our role on this appeal is a limited one. Although we review the ultimate …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals