In Chaidez v. United States, the United States Supreme Court has determined that Padilla is not retroactive. The decision arises in the context of a writ of error coram nobis filed after removal proceedings were initiated.
Justice Kagan writes:
In Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U. S. ___ (2010), this Court held that the Sixth Amendment requires an attorney fora criminal defendant to provide advice about the risk of deportation arising from a guilty plea. We consider here whether that ruling applies retroactively, so that a person whose conviction became final before we decided Padilla can benefit from it. We conclude that, under the principles set out in Teague v. Lane, 489 U. S. 288 (1989), Padilla does not have retroactive effect.
The court finds that Padilla announced a new rule. Justice Thomas concurred in the judgment (he reasserts Padilla was wrongly decided and so a Teague analysis is unnecessary) and Justices Sotomayor and Ginsburg dissented.