Matter of CYC, 3 I. & N. Dec. 623 (BIA 1949) (where there has been a judicial adjudication of the criminal charge before the court, resulting in the dismissal of the proceedings, the noncitizen should not be held bound by an independent admission of the commission of the crime charged unless the criminal court's action is based on purely technical grounds, such as the running of the statute of limitations or an acquittal obtained on the basis of perjured testimony)
In Matter of CYC, 3 I. & N. Dec. 623, 629, 1949 WL 6509 (BIA 1949), the BIA held:
 Under the authority of decided cases the respondent cannot
 now effectively admit the commission of the offense embraced
 in count 3 of the indictment (perjury count) which was
 dismissed by the court. Cf. Matter of G---, 56064/847 (June
 6, 1941); Matter of W---, 56033/701 (April 10, 1943);
 Matter of T---, 56018/720 (December 16, 1942); Matter of
 A---, 55862/748 (October 28, 1943); Matter of M---,
 56120/790 (July 3, 1943); Matter of H---, 55944/993 (July
 13, 1946). This Board is of the opinion that where there has
 been an adjudication of the cause resulting in dismissal of the
 proceedings, we should not hold the alien bound by an
 independent admission of the commission of the crime unless
 the court's action is based on purely technical grounds, such as
 the running of the statute of limitations, or an acquittal
 obtained on the basis of perjured testimony. We are persuaded
 in this conclusion by reason of the fact that Congress has
 expressed its intention in immigration matters to give due
 regard to executive as well as judicial clemency and not hold
 aliens responsible for crimes which have been "forgiven" by
 the locality having jurisdiction over their punishment. Cf.
 Matter of M--- (supra); Matter of H--- (supra). In the case
 before us there is no showing that the court's action was based
 on purely technical grounds. While immigration authorities may make independent determinations of excludability without regard to judicial action in criminal proceedings because neither proceeding is res judicata of the other, there is a long-standing custom for the immigration courts to consider the criminal courts adjudication as binding.  Matter of I, 4 I. & N. Dec. 159 (BIA 1950) explains that the Immigration courts generally will not look beyond the criminal courts disposition of a charge to hold the alien on an admission that may arise from the set facts.