(A)  Foreign Convictions and Sentences.  A foreign conviction for conduct not deemed criminal under United States law does not trigger deportation.[161]  In Matter of Eslamizar,[162] the BIA indicated: “We have found that Congress intended other limitations with respect to the recognition of foreign convictions for immigration purposes, holding, inter alia, that a foreign conviction must be for conduct recognized as criminal by United States standards in order to be deemed a crime under the immigration laws.  See Matter of De La Nues, 18 I. & N. Dec. 140 (BIA 1981); Matter of McNaughton, 16 I. & N. Dec. 569 (BIA 1978), aff’d, 612 F.2d 457 (9th Cir. 1980).”

 

            For example, “Theft or stealing” under a Canadian statute includes offenses which would not be so characterized under United States law, since it prohibits temporary as well as permanent taking, so the BIA may go beyond the foreign statute and consider such facts as may appear from the record of conviction or the admissions of the noncitizen, in order to determine by independent judgment whether, under United States law, the offense of conviction involves moral turpitude.[163]  The actual sentence imposed by the court is used to determine the immigration effect of a conviction, even if the conviction occurred in a foreign country.[164]  As with convictions occurring in United States federal and state courts, the noncitizen may not go behind the face of a foreign conviction and attempt to show that the underlying conduct does not fall within a ground of deportation.[165]

[161] Matter of De La Nues, 18 I. & N. Dec. 140 (BIA 1981); Matter of Ramirez-Rivero, 18 I. & N. Dec. 135 (BIA 1981).

[162] Matter of Eslamizar, 23 I. & N. Dec. 684 (BIA Oct. 19, 2004) (en banc) (court procedures under Ore. Rev. Stat. § 153.076, did not constitute a conviction for immigration purposes, since the proceedings do not allow a jury trial, right to court-appointed counsel, or proof beyond a reasonable doubt), overruling Matter of CR, 8 I. & N. Dec. 59 (BIA 1958) (police court adjudication of petty theft under a municipal ordinance, on a standard of preponderance of the evidence, constituted a conviction for immigration purposes).

[163] Matter of T, 2 I. & N. Dec. 22 (BIA, AG 1944).

[164] See Matter of Scarpulla, 15 I. & N. Dec. 139 (BIA 1974); Matter of M, 8 I. & N. Dec. 453, 454-455 (BIA 1959).

[165] Chiaramonte v. INS, 626 F.2d 1093, 1098 (2d Cir. 1980) (stating that because of comity concerns and practical considerations, “an alien adjudged guilty by a foreign tribunal of a crime of moral turpitude may not attempt to demonstrate . . . [in a deportation  proceeding] that his actions were only undertaken in response to exceptional circumstances and that he is morally blameless”).

Other

SAFE HAVEN - STATE REHABILITATIVE RELIEF - PRIOR FOREIGN CONVICTION DOES NOT DISQUALIFY DEFENDANT FROM FFOA TREATMENT
The Federal First Offender Act, 18 U.S.C. 3607(a)(1), does not permit an expungement if the defendant has prior to the commission of the current offense suffered a conviction under "Federal or State" law. This provision does not include foreign convictions as a disqualification for this relief.