As a result, this “modest” change in the law, as one state assemblyman termed it, will prevent families from being torn apart.Building on that innovative foundation, AB 1352 allows migrants to seek remedial relief from California courts by providing that any defendant who successfully completed Deferred Entry of Judgment can apply to the court to withdraw their plea on the basis of being misinformed about the immigration consequences and the court shall grant withdrawal of the plea and dismiss the case again. It is believed that this withdrawal of the plea will pass the standard set in Matter of Pickering, 23 I&N Dec. 621 (BIA 2003), that a withdrawal or vacatur is effective in immigration court if it is based on an underlying defect in the plea.Both bills passed the California Assembly with wide margins and there is good reason to believe that the State Senate will also pass these bills and they will be signed by the Governor.So while the U.S. Supreme Court has reigned in some drug deportations, the way forward is not necessarily with the dysfunctional Congress, but with state legislatures.

Those who do not study immigration law are often surprised to learn that lawfully present noncitizens are sometimes deported on the basis of state convictions that are still pending on direct appeal, judicially expunged, or treated as a deferred adjudication or suspended sentence under state law. See Matter of Pickering, 23 I. & N. Dec. 621, 624 (B.I.A. 2003), rev’d on other grounds, Pickering v. Gonzales, 465 F.3d 263 (6th Cir. 2006). Similarly, the Board of Immigration Appeals and some federal courts have held that even full gubernatorial pardons do not remove the immigration consequences of many deportation categories.