Maiken Aguila, a legal permanent resident facing deportation to Cuba following his guilty plea in 2006 to a federal charge of possession with intent to distribute marijuana plants, appeals the District Court’s order denying his petition for writ of error coram nobis, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651. 1 As a basis for his petition, Aguila asserted that his judgment and conviction should be vacated in light of Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010), because his previous counsel was ineffective for failing to inform him, or misinforming him, of the immigration consequences of pleading guilty.

After the parties filed their briefs on appeal, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Chaidez v. United States, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 1103, 1107-08, 1113, 185 L.Ed.2d 149 (2013), also a coram nobis case where the petitioner sought the retroactive applicability of Padilla to her conviction. In Chaidez, the Court held that Padilla announced a new constitutional rule of criminal procedure, and was not retroactive to defendants whose convictions became final before its issuance. Chaidez, 133 S.Ct. at 1113. In light of Chaidez, Aguila cannot seek, as he does here, coram nobis relief on the ground that Padilla retroactively applies to his *804 conviction. Accordingly, we affirm the District Court’s order denying his coram, nobis petition.

AFFIRMED.