A court finding that a defendant violated a condition of probation does not constitute a conviction, and therefore does not establish that the defendant committed a second CMT for purposes of disqualifying him from the petty offense exception to inadmissibility.  If the conduct underlying the violation of probation constitutes CMT conduct (i.e., the commission of a second CMT), then the immigrant would be disqualified from the benefits of the POE.  Counsel should examine the petition filed in the criminal court alleging a violation of probation, and any attached documents such as police reports, and determine the nature of the conduct resulting in the allegation that the defendant violated probation.  If it was a CMT, the government has a basis for the claim that the defendant committed a second CMT and is therefore disqualified from the POE. If it was conduct not constituting a CMT, such as a failure to report to the probation officer, failure to pay a fine, or commission of another criminal offense that is not a CMT, then the probation violation conduct is not a second CMT and the defendant is not disqualified from the POE since s/he did not commit a second CMT.  Bear in mind that the disqualification - that the defendant committed a second CMT - is a conduct-based factor, and the noncitizen is free to contest it as a factual matter.  For example, if a police report attached to the probation violation petition accuses the defendant of committing a CMT, immigration counsel is free to call witnesses in immigration court to attempt to persuade the court that the defendant did not do it, or that what the defendant did was not a CMT.