The Washington Court of Appeals has dismissed the personal restraint petition of Kimlis Tek, who challenged his 2011 convictions on grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel and constitutional violations related to immigration proceedings. The court ruled that Tek's claims were either time-barred or not properly before them, which has significant implications for his legal status and future immigration proceedings.

This ruling affects Tek, who has been in the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) since his release from incarceration in May 2025. His case highlights the intersection of criminal convictions and immigration law, particularly for noncitizens facing deportation due to criminal records.

Background

Kimlis Tek was born in a refugee camp in Thailand after his mother fled political unrest in Cambodia. He immigrated to the United States at the age of two and later joined the military in 2009. Tek’s legal troubles began when he committed several crimes against his former wife, Andrea, leading to multiple convictions, including first-degree assault and witness tampering, under Thurston County Superior Court Cause Nos. 10-1-00807-5, 10-1-00911-0, and 10-1-01957-3. His convictions were finalized in June 2011 after an appeal was affirmed by the court.

In May 2025, Tek was released from prison but was immediately taken into ICE custody, where active immigration proceedings were initiated against him. Following this, he filed personal restraint petitions (PRPs) claiming that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to inform him about the immigration consequences of his convictions. He argued that this lack of information affected his decision-making during the legal process.

The Ruling

The Court of Appeals, led by Chief Judge Veljacic, ruled against Tek, stating that his claims were either procedurally time-barred or not properly before the court. The court explained, "Tek’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim is time barred," as he did not file his petition within the one-year limit following the finalization of his judgment and sentence.

Additionally, the court addressed Tek's arguments related to the constitutionality of his immigration proceedings, stating that these claims were not within their jurisdiction. The ruling emphasized that issues arising from immigration proceedings must be reviewed through federal processes, as outlined in the Immigration and Nationality Act. The court concluded that Tek's claims regarding double jeopardy, cruel and unusual punishment, and due process violations were not properly raised in the state court.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for Kimlis Tek and others in similar situations. By dismissing his petition, the court effectively upholds the original convictions and reinforces the idea that claims of ineffective assistance of counsel must be filed within a specific timeframe. It also clarifies the limitations of state courts in addressing immigration-related issues, which must be handled through federal channels.

The outcome could set a precedent for future cases where noncitizens face similar circumstances, emphasizing the importance of timely legal action and the need for clear communication from defense attorneys regarding the potential immigration consequences of criminal convictions.

What's Next

Tek's options for appeal are limited, as the court has dismissed his petition. He may seek to challenge the immigration proceedings through the federal court system, but that process would be separate from the state court rulings. Details regarding any related cases or further appeals were not available in the court filing.