What is considered a “conviction” for immigration purposes?

Statute & Regulations

Section 101(a)(48) (A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act defines conviction as:

(48)(A) The term “conviction” means, with respect to an alien, a formal judgment of guilt of the alien entered by a court or, if adjudication of guilt has been withheld, where-

(i) a judge or jury has found the alien guilty or the alien has entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere or has admitted sufficient facts to warrant a finding of guilt, and

(ii) the judge has ordered some form of punishment, penalty, or restraint on the alien’s liberty to be imposed.

See INA §101(a)(48) (A); 8 CFR §1101 (a)(48).

CASE LAW

The Board of Immigration Appeals has addressed the issue in various contexts. Matter of Chavez-Alvarez, 26 I. & N. Dec. 274 (BIA Mar. 14, 2014); Matter of Cuellar-Gomez, 25 I&N Dec. 850, 855 (BIA Jul. 18, 2012) (Kansas conviction of possession of marijuana, in violation of a Wichita municipal ordinance, constituted a conviction for immigration proceedings because the Wichita proceedings required proof beyond a reasonable doubt, even though there was no right to counsel or jury trial). The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has as well, “formal judgment of guilt” is defined by reference to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(k)(1), which provides that “[i]n the judgment of conviction, the court must set forth the plea, the jury verdict or the court’s findings, the adjudication, and the sentence.”Puello v. Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Servs., 511 F.3d 324, 329 (2d Cir. 2007).

Just because New York State decided to seal the records does not change their impact under Federal Law. See Matter of German Santos, 28 I&N Dec. 552, 557 (BIA 2022) (stating that whether immigration consequences flow from a State conviction is “a question of federal, not state, law, despite the fact that the predicate offense and its punishment are defined by the law of the State”).

Matter of Azrag, 28 I&N Dec. 784 (BIA 2024)

In 2024 the Board of Immigration Appeals issued a precedential decision regarding the circumstances under which a State Court vacates a conviction, which is extremely similar to this exact issue. The Board addressed whether the State’s vacatur would be recognized for immigration purposes. See Matter of Azrag, 28 I&N Dec. 784 (BIA 2024). In that case a noncitizen in Kansas was convicted of a removable offense. The State of Kansas ended up vacating that criminal conviction and allowing him to plea to a lower charge that, if recognized for immigration purposes, would defeat the charges of removability and allow him to keep his legal permanent resident status.    

The Board found insufficient evidence in the record to determine that the convictions were vacated because of a defect in his criminal proceedings (that is, the constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel). The general rule with state court vacaturs is that they are recognized for immigration purposes when they are related to a substantive or procedural defect in the underlying proceedings; they are not recognized when they are done for purely rehabilitative purposes, such as to avoid immigration consequences. The Clean Slate Act does not vacate convictions, rather seals them, but it does so for rehabilitative purposes. The records are sealed after a set period of years upon showing rehabilitation. It has nothing to do with any defect in the underlying court proceedings or the law, so it would never be recognized for immigration purposes pursuant to Matter of Azrag, 28 I&N Dec. 784 (BIA 2024).

If your conviction is vacated because of legal reasons relating to the underlying case then immigration will recognize that but cases that are disposed of for rehabilitation alone will remain as convictions will full force and effect.

Matter of R-T-P-, 28 I&N Dec. 828 (BIA 2024)

[full decision]

(1) Under the statutory definition of “conviction” provided at section 101(a)(48)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(48)(A) (Supp. II 1996), no effect is to be given in immigration proceedings to a state action which purports to expunge, dismiss, cancel, vacate, discharge, or otherwise remove a guilty plea or other record of guilt or conviction by operation of a state rehabilitative statute.

(2) With the enactment of the federal statute defining “conviction” with respect to an alien, our decisions in Matter of G-, 9 I&N Dec. 159 (BIA 1960, A.G. 1961); Matter of Ibarra Obando, 12 I&N Dec. 576 (BIA 1966, A.G. 1967); Matter of Luviano, 21 I&N Dec. 235 (BIA 1996), and others which address the impact of state rehabilitative actions on whether an alien is “convicted” for immigration purposes are no longer controlling.

(3) Once an alien is subject to a “conviction” as that term is defined at section 101(a)(48)(A) of the Act, the alien remains convicted for immigration purposes notwithstanding a subsequent state action purporting to erase the original determination of guilt through a rehabilitative procedure.

(4) The policy exception in Matter of Manrique, 21 I&N Dec. 58 (BIA 1995), which accorded federal first offender treatment to certain drug offenders who had received state rehabilitative treatment is superseded by the enactment of section 101(a)(48)(A), which gives no effect to state rehabilitative actions in immigration proceedings. Matter of Manrique, supra, superseded.

(5) An alien, who has had his guilty plea to the offense of possession of a controlled substance vacated and his case dismissed upon termination of his probation pursuant to section 19- 2604(1) of the Idaho Code, is considered to have a conviction for immigration purposes.

Conviction Without Sentence

The statutory definition of conviction, for immigration purposes, requires that the court must have ordered some form of punishment, penalty, or restraint on the alien’s liberty to be imposed. INA 101(a)(48)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(48)(A)(2010). As the Second, Third and Fifth Circuits have held, a formal judgment of guilt requires that the court must set forth the plea, the jury verdict or the court’s findings, the adjudication, and the sentence. Singh v. Holder, 568 F.3d 525, 530 (5th Cir. 2009) (emphasis added), citing Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(k)(1); Puello v. Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Servs., 511 F.3d 324, 329 (2d Cir. 2007); Perez v. Elwood, 294 F.3d 552, 562 (3d Cir. 2002)). The United States Supreme Court also holds that [f]inal judgment in a criminal case … means sentence. The sentence is the judgment. Singh, 568 F.3d at 530, citing Corey v. United States, 375 U.S. 169, 174, 84 S.Ct. 298, 11 L.Ed.2d 229 (1963).

HANDLING SENTENCE MODIFICATIONS

Sentence modifications that state that it is the final sentence may governs for purposes of assessing the immigration consequences according to Matter of Song, 23 I. & N. Dec. 173 (BIA 2001); Matter of Cota-Vargas, 23 I. & N. Dec. 849 (BIA 2005). If state probation violation procedure provides that a defendant receives credit for time served originally against a probation violation sentence, then the original and probation violation sentences would not be added together.

In New York, the probation violation sentence imposed is in addition to the original jail term. New York Penal L. 60.01(4). On a probation violation sentence, defense counsel can ask that the original sentence be vacated and replaced by the probation violation sentence, and the defendant can if necessary waive credit for time already served. Under these circumstances, the two sentences would not be added together, because the first sentence has been vacated, and only then is the second sentence imposed ” each of which is by itself too short to trigger aggravated felony treatment for the conviction. As the Board stated: “we see nothing in the language or stated purpose of section 101(a)(48)(B) that would authorize us to equate a sentence that has been modified or vacated by a court with one that has merely been suspended.” Matter of Song, 23 I&N Dec. 849, 852 (BIA 2001).

PROBATION VIOLATION IS NOT A NEW CONVICTION

INA 101(a)(48)(A) (statutory definition of conviction); United States v. Hidalgo-Macias, 300 F.3d 281, 285 (2d Cir. 2002) (rejecting the argument that a one-year sentence on a violation of probation was a separate conviction from the conviction for the underlying offense, and holding that the probation violation did not make the underlying offense a crime of violence aggravated felony: “the imposition of a sentence of imprisonment following revocation of probation [in NY] is a modification of the original sentence”); In re Ahmed, 2005 WL 3952705 (Aug. 22, 2005) (unpublished) (“a [New York] probation violation is not — in the context of a probation revocation hearing — deemed a crime from which a discrete sentence may flow.”), aff’d, Ahmed v. Attorney General of U.S., 212 Fed. Appx. 133 (3rd Cir. Jan 8, 2007) (unpublished); see Darvin M. v. Jacobs, 509 N.E.2d 336, 337 (N.Y. 1987) (“A violation of probation giving rise to revocation proceedings is not a ‘crime’ or ‘offense’ which . . . must be prosecuted by a District Attorney. . . . Its purpose is to determine if defendant’s subsequent acts violate the conditions of the original sentence not whether the acts constitute a crime.”); NY Criminal Procedure Law 1.20(16), 1.20(18), 410.10, 410.30, 410.70 (a New York violation of probation is merely a further “criminal proceeding” pursuant to the original “criminal action” and is not a new “criminal action”).