The Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act creates a possible defense for certain noncitizens who committed an offense while under 18 years of age, who may argue that the disposition is a delinquency adjudication - and therefore not a conviction of a crime for immigration purposes - even if they pleaded guilty to an offense as an adult: "Whenever a juvenile transferred to district court under this section is not convicted of the crime upon which the transfer was based or another crime which would have warranted transfer had the juvenile been initially charged with that crime, further proceedings concerning the juvenile shall be conducted pursuant to the provisions of this chapter." 18 U.S.C. 5032. Criminal defense counsel assisting minor clients with pending charges in the federal criminal justice system that the Attorney General transferred from juvenile proceedings to adult court, should try to get a plea that would not have warranted a transfer in the first instance. If they succeed, the resulting plea is a juvenile disposition under 18 U.S.C. 5032 by operation of law. The law is less clear for analogous transfers in the state system. Nevertheless, counsel may still argue that a plea that would not have warranted a transfer in the first instance should not be considered a conviction for immigration purposes because Congress did not intend it to be a conviction in light of 18 U.S.C. 5032. The First Circuit has rejected this argument. Garcia v. INS, 239 F.3d 409 (1st Cir. 2001). The Ninth Circuit case law that requires comparable treatment for noncitizens in federal and state criminal justice systems supports this argument by analogy. See, e.g., Lujan-Armendariz v. INS, 222 F.3d 728 (9th Cir. 2000), vacating Matter of Roldan-Santoyo, 22 I. & N. Dec. 512 (BIA 1999) (a state rehabilitative disposition is not a conviction for immigration law purposes if it is a counterpart to the Federal First Offender Act (FFOA)). Counsel in the Ninth Circuit can argue that a noncitizen defendant in state court should get the same treatment s/he could have received under the FJDA just as a noncitizen defendant under Lujan now gets the benefit of the treatment s/he could receive under the FFOA. For example, a noncitizen living in California does not face juvenile proceedings because he is facing aggravated assault charges. He pleads guilty to disorderly conduct in adult court. There is no provision under California law that a defendant under 18 be treated as a juvenile if he pleads guilty to an offense that would not have justified transfer to adult court in the first instance. Counsel can argue that he is entitled to the treatment he would have received had he faced federal charges, which would mean that he would have been treated as a juvenile. Thanks to Dan Kesselbrenner and the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild for this argument.