Ms. De La Cruz migrated to Brooklyn, New York, to live the American Dream. Shortly after her arrival, she was approached by a man who asked if she wanted to work in a market in Brooklyn for good pay, with the possibility that her employer might sponsor her for an employment-based green card. Excited by the opportunity, she accepted the offer.

She began working at the market and soon realized that, in addition to selling groceries, the business was involved in distributing drugs and narcotics. Confused and feeling helpless, she told her employer she was not comfortable working there. He said nothing and remained silent.

The next day, two men approached her and told her she must continue working at the market or she and her family in the Dominican Republic would be harmed. Unsure what to do, she returned to the market. Shortly afterward, the location was raided by New York State law enforcement, and she was arrested and charged with drug distribution.

She was represented by counsel, who advised her to tell the truth, assuring her that in exchange she would not be sentenced to prison. Acting on this ill advice, she pled guilty to drug distribution. Her attorney never informed her that pleading guilty to these charges would have severe immigration consequences, including deportation.

Under the plea deal, she was also required to cooperate with law enforcement and testify against co-defendants.

Following her sentencing and conviction for Criminal Sale of a Controlled Substance, two men approached her and shot her multiple times. She was rushed to a nearby hospital, and after several surgeries, she survived.

She consulted several attorneys, all of whom told her that, because her conviction involved drug distribution—classified as an aggravated felony—she could not remain in the United States or obtain a green card.

Many years later, a family friend referred her to attorney Davar Yusufi. After reviewing the record, Mr. Yusufi determined that because her conviction occurred before the Padilla decision, an ineffective assistance of counsel claim based solely on failure to warn about immigration consequences would not likely succeed.

Instead, Mr. Yusufi filed a Criminal Procedure Law § 440 motion in Kings County Criminal Court to vacate or reopen her conviction, asserting ineffective assistance of counsel on the grounds of “actual innocence.” He argued that she was, in fact, innocent and that her prior counsel had failed to investigate the facts and had accepted an unfavorable plea offer instead of taking the case to trial.

After months of negotiation and litigation, the Kings County District Attorney’s Office agreed to vacate her prior aggravated felony conviction for distribution of a controlled substance and reduce it to simple possession—a misdemeanor.

Ms. De La Cruz was resentenced accordingly. Under Harbin v. Sessions, her new conviction made her eligible for cancellation of removal and provided a genuine path toward obtaining a green card and ultimately U.S. citizenship.