A divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled Oct. 16 that Mara Morillo's federal drug-conspiracy conviction in New Hampshire stays vacated, finding 2-1 that her lawyer's advice about deportation was constitutionally deficient.

The opinion affirms U.S. District Judge Stephen McAuliffe's grant of a writ of error coram nobis, which lets someone who has finished a sentence challenge the conviction. The court's opinions page lists an errata sheet dated Nov. 2 that corrected one misspelled word on page 9 and did not change the ruling.

The plea and the advice

Morillo, born in Venezuela, came to the United States in 1996 on a one-year travel visa and overstayed it, the opinion says. A grand jury in New Hampshire charged her and her husband with conspiracy to distribute controlled substances. The opinion places the conduct in 2014 and 2015.

Morillo told the district court that her appointed federal public defender assured her she could stay in the country and "work out" her immigration situation after serving her sentence. Her plea agreement said she "may be removed", and the judge at her plea hearing said the plea "could result in immigration consequences that may include deportation". She pleaded guilty and received 84 months in prison and three years of supervised release.

In August 2021, after finishing both terms, she received a notice of intent to issue a final administrative removal order. She hired new counsel in February 2025 and filed the petition. At an evidentiary hearing, her daughter and a family friend described her plan to resolve her status after release. Her former lawyer said he had no specific recollection of her case and described his usual practice of discussing immigration consequences with clients.

What the majority decided

Judge Gelpi, writing for the majority, found that the district court did not abuse its discretion on any of three questions. On delay, the "may be removed" warnings matched what her lawyer had told her, and his statement at sentencing that she was "going to be deported" came while he was arguing for leniency. On performance, the court held that her case "directly maps" onto Padilla v. Kentucky, the 2010 Supreme Court decision that requires lawyers to advise clients about deportation risks. On prejudice, it found a reasonable probability she would have gone to trial, citing her uncontested testimony and a potential defense.

The government argued that the delay was excessive, that Padilla requires less than the district court demanded, and that finality and the burden of a retrial counted against the writ. The majority called those interests "legitimate and weighty" but said they did not require reversal.

The dissent

Judge Dunlap, dissenting, wrote that Morillo was told at her 2017 sentencing, in her lawyer's memorandum and in court, that deportation was coming, and that she then waited eight years to seek relief. He cited the circuit's 2025 decision in Aceituno v. United States as controlling.

The opinion does not say whether the government will seek rehearing or a retrial.