to conclude that the district court fully complied with the mandates of Rule 11 in accepting Sinclair’s plea. Moreover, the district court ensured that Sinclair’s guilty plea was knowing and voluntary and was supported by a sufficient factual basis. See United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116, 119-20 (4th Cir.1991). Sinclair contends that his plea was invalid because the district court did not inquire into the impact his plea agreement would have on his immigration status. Assuming without deciding that the district court had such an obligation, we note that Sinclair’s substantial rights were unaffected because he was an illegal alien and therefore his guilty plea had no bearing on his deportability. Cf. Padilla v. Kentucky, — U.S. ---, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 1486, 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010) (<HOLDING>). Sinclair contends that he was denied
holding that the ijs failure to inform alien that he is eligible for relief from deportation constitutes due process violation where alien establishes prejudice holding that trial counsel had a duty to inform client who is a resident legal alien whether his guilty plea carries a risk of deportation holding that appellant was harmed by trial courts failure to admonish him of deportation consequences of his guilty plea where the record was silent about whether he was ever specifically informed that his guilty plea could result in deportation and record showed that appellant moved to the united states from korea holding counsel must inform her client whether his plea carries a risk of deportation holding that the ijs failure to inform alien that he was eligible for relief from deportation constitutes a due process violation if alien establishes prejudice