years or more or if he were sentenced to imprisonment for
a term of six months or more; and
( iii) he could be deported.
See Shiwprashad, at paras. 72, 75.
 In R. v. Coffey,  B.C.J. No. 2072, 2017 BCCA 359, the
appellant sought to set aside his guilty plea as uninformed on the
basis that he was unaware of the collateral immigration consequences of the guilty plea and two-year sentence. In particular,
the appellant said that he did not know at the time of his guilty
plea that as a permanent resident he could face deportation or
that the length of his sentence, based on a joint submission,
would prevent him from appealing his removal order.
 The British Columbia Court of Appeal was satisfied that
the appellant was aware that his permanent resident status in
Canada could be jeopardized by his conviction and sentence. He
was concerned that his guilty plea might lead authorities to initiate a removal process and instructed his lawyer not to raise
immigration status during plea negotiations. Despite his concern,
he did not choose to consult an immigration lawyer. A sentence of
six months or less was unfeasible in the circumstances: Coffey,
at paras. 46-49.
 The appeal was dismissed. In delivering the reasons of the
court, Garson J.A. concluded, at paras. 50-51:
In summary, an informed guilty plea requires the accused to have some
awareness of the potential immigration consequences of their plea. Further,
immigration consequences may be a necessary consideration in sentencing.
However, an accused need not necessarily know the precise immigration con-
sequences of their conviction and sentence. Case-by-case analysis is required
to determine the degree to which an accused person must be aware of the
specific details of the immigration consequences of their guilty plea.
In this case, because of what I have termed Mr. Coffey’s willful blindness,
I conclude that Mr. Coffey’s plea was sufficiently informed. It follows that his
counsel did not contribute to an uninformed plea. On this basis alone I would
dismiss the appeal.
 In R. v. Tyler,  B.C.J. No. 434, 2007 BCCA 142,
218 C.C.C. (3d) 400, the appellant sought to have his guilty plea
struck on the basis that it was uninformed because he did not
know the likely immigration consequences flowing from his plea.
In dismissing his appeal, Donald J.A. wrote, at paras. 23-25:
While the automatic effect of a further conviction of possession of a break-in
instrument may not have been fully understood by the appellant, I am satis-
fied that he knew that his status in Canada was in serious jeopardy. He
pleaded guilty to achieve the short term gain of early release and he put aside
consideration of the longer term consequences, no doubt hoping that things