In order to trigger deportation, the conviction must be for an offense that was committed[106] after the noncitizen’s most recent admission into the United States.  See § 2.6(A), supra.[107]  In most cases, the conviction will have occurred “after admission,” and will trigger deportation.  If the noncitizen entered the United States without inspection (which is not considered an admission), however, and then suffered the conviction, and was then admitted into the United States as a lawful permanent resident, the conviction did not occur “after admission,” and the noncitizen would not be deportable under this ground.

[106] This statute means what it says: the date the offense was committed governs, rather than the date on which the conviction occurred.  Matter of Yanez-Jaquez, 13 I. & N. Dec. 449, 451 (BIA 1970).

[107] Matter of Shanu, 23 I. & N. Dec. 754 (BIA 2005) (noncitizen convicted of a single crime involving moral turpitude punishable by at least one year is removable from the United States under INA § 237(a)(2)(A)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i) if the crime was committed within five years after the date of any admission, whether the first or any later admission).

Second Circuit

CONVICTION - DATE OF CONVICTION - SENTENCE REQUIRED TO CONSTITUTE CONVICTION
Puello v. BCIS, 511 F.3d 324 (2d Cir. Dec. 20, 2007) (under INA 101(f)(8), 8 U.S.C. 1101(f)(8), the date of conviction is the date of sentence: "In sum, we hold that, under the plain meaning of the definition of "conviction" in 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(48)(A), the entry of a "formal judgment of guilt . . . by a court" occurs when judgment is entered on the docket, not when a defendant pleads guilty."); see Perez v. Elwood, 294 F.3d 552, 562 (3d Cir. 2002) (the date of conviction under the INA is the date of either sentencing or entry of judgment on the docket); Abimbola v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 173, 181 (2d Cir. 2004) (an Alford plea coupled with a sentence constitutes a conviction under the INA, and noting that "Congress focused the sanction of removal on a criminal conviction as opposed to an admission of guilt"); Mugalli v. Ashcroft, 258 F.3d 52, 62 (2d Cir. 2001) (in the deportation context, a New York state conviction mitigated by a Certificate of Relief is still a conviction under the INA because the defendant "entered a plea of guilty, and the court entered a formal judgment of guilt").

Sixth Circuit

ADMISSION - PAROLE - ENTRY INTO UNITED STATES TO STAND TRIAL UNDER PAROLE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN ADMISSION
Mansour v. Gonzales, ___ F.3d ___2006 WL 3627187 (6th Cir. Dec. 14, 2006) (noncitizen who was paroled into the United States to stand trial in a criminal case did not make a lawful admission, for purposes of becoming eligible to apply for INA 212(c) relief or making a motion to reopen removal proceedings), citing Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 536 (9th Cir.2004) (holding that an alien paroled into the United States pending completion of exclusion proceedings did not lawfully enter the United States and was therefore ineligible for withholding of deportation).

Ninth Circuit

ADMISSION - LEGALIZATION - SPECIAL AGRICULTURAL WORKERS - ADMISSIBILITY DETERMINED AS OF DATE OF ADMISSION FOR LAWFUL TEMPORARY RESIDENCE AND IS NOT REDETERMINED ON DATE OF ADJUSTMENT TO LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENT
Perez-Enriquez v. Gonzales, ___ F.3d ___ (9th Cir. Sept. 15, 2006) (en banc) (admissibility of noncitizen under the Special Agricultural Worker (SAW) legalization program is determined as of the applicant's date of admission for lawful temporary residence, and is not redetermined as of the date of adjustment to lawful permanent residence). http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0370244pv4.pdf

ADMISSION - BORDER SEARCH
United States v. Romm, 455 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. Jul. 24, 2006) (border search exception to warrant requirements, allowing government to conduct routine searches of persons entering United States without probable cause, reasonable suspicion, or warrant applies to noncitizen who had attempted to enter Canada, but was turned back; defendant was in same position as any applicant for admission).

Tenth Circuit

ILLEGAL RE-ENTRY SENTENCING - AGE OF CONVICTION
United States v. Torres-Duenas, ___ F.3d ___, 2006 WL 2468308 (10th Cir. Aug. 28, 2006) (sentencing guidelines increasing offence level by 8 for aggravated felony, and 16 for crimes of violence apply regardless of the age of the conviction; 20 year old conviction properly used to increase level upon conviction of illegal re-entry).

Other

OVERVIEW " STIPULATED REMOVAL
A news report indicates that ICE is unofficially ending the stipulated removal practice. http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2011/11/06/20111106immigration-arizona-deportation-program.html