In Santos-Sanchez v. United States, U.S., 130 SCt. 2340, 176 L. Ed. 2d 559 (2010), a legal permanent resident petitioned for a writ of coram nobis to vacate his misdemeanor conviction because it had triggered removal proceedings against him. He had argued that his counsel was ineffective for having misadvised him as to the deportation consequences of his guilty plea. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit had agreed that his claim could only be raised in that collateral civil proceeding, as his direct appeals had been exhausted and he was no longer in custody, precluding habeas corpus relief. The Fifth Circuit had denied the petition concluding that deportation "was a collateral consequence of the criminal process" (Santos-Sanchez v. United States, 548 F3d 327, 334 [5th Cir. 2008]), albeit a "harsh" one. (Id., at 336 n.5). Rejecting the petitioner's claim that the changes in immigration law visited by IIRIRA and AEDPA had so altered the nature of deportation that it should be considered a direct consequence of a guilty plea, the Court found no deficiency in counsel's performance and denied relief. (Id., at 336-37). The Supreme Court, after granting certiorari, vacated the judgment and remanded the case to the Fifth Circuit "for further consideration in light of Padilla v. Kentucky . . . ." (Santos-Sanchez v. United States, supra, 130 SCt. at 2340), demonstrating by its own example that Padilla was to be applied retroactively to cases on collateral review.