Immigration · Primary-source case analysis

Chaidez: Padilla Did Not Apply Retroactively to Already-Final Convictions

By Aneeta Mishra and Timothy Chan

Published May 3, 2026

Chaidez v. United States defines the federal retroactivity boundary for Padilla's rule requiring defense counsel to advise a noncitizen about the deportation risks of a guilty plea.

The conviction became final before Padilla

Roselva Chaidez pleaded guilty to mail fraud in 2004. After removal proceedings began, she sought coram nobis relief based on counsel's failure to explain the immigration consequences, but her conviction had become final years before the Supreme Court decided Padilla in 2010.

Teague asks whether precedent dictated the rule

Under the federal Teague framework, a new criminal-procedure rule generally does not apply on collateral review to a conviction already final. A rule is new when the result was not dictated by existing precedent and would not have been apparent to all reasonable jurists.

Padilla announced a new rule

Padilla did more than apply Strickland to another set of facts. It first rejected the prevailing view that advice about deportation was categorically outside the Sixth Amendment because deportation was a collateral consequence. That threshold holding changed the law in most jurisdictions.

The Court affirmed nonretroactivity

The Court held Padilla unavailable to Chaidez under Teague and affirmed. It distinguished claims that counsel affirmatively misrepresented immigration consequences and did not resolve every remedy that might exist under state retroactivity doctrines or other law.

Key takeaways

• Determine exactly when the conviction became final.
• Separate failure-to-advise claims from affirmative-misadvice claims.
• Analyze federal and state retroactivity rules independently.
• Review every available post-conviction vehicle and deadline.