Safe Havens

(A)  Dispositions in Juvenile Court.  Immigration authorities recognize that juvenile proceedings result in civil findings of delinquency and therefore do not constitute criminal convictions.[21]  Thus, the long-standing rule is that an adjudication of juvenile delinquency does not constitute a conviction for immigration purposes.  The enactment of the new definition of “conviction” by the IIRAIRA did not alter this result.[22]  Therefore, a person in juvenile proceedings can be found guilty of theft, for example, and the DHS will not consider that to be a conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude.[23]  It simply is not considered a qualifying “conviction” for immigration purposes.[24]

[21] Matter of Devison, 22 I. & N. Dec. 1362 (BIA 2000); Matter of De La Nues, 18 I. & N. Dec. 140 (BIA 1981); Matter of Ramirez-Rivero, 18 I. & N. Dec. 135 (BIA 1981) (Cuban conviction); Matter of F, 4 I. & N. Dec. 726 (BIA 1952); Matter of A, 3 I. & N. Dec. 368 (BIA 1948); Matter of O’N, 2 I. & N. Dec. 319 (AG 1945). The BIA’s holdings in the earlier of these cases were adopted by the State Department in 52 Fed. Reg. 17,942 (May 13, 1987) (amending (former) 22 C.F.R § § 41.91(a)(9) and (10) and 42.91(a)(9) and (10)) (new rule inapplicable to a juvenile tried as an adult for a violent crime).

[22] Matter of Devison, 22 I. & N. Dec. 1362 (BIA 2000).

[23] United States ex rel. Cerami v. Uhl, 78 F.2d 698 (2d Cir. 1935) (minor committed to juvenile facility, rather than prison, held not convicted of deportable offense); Tutrone v. Shaughnessy, 160 F.Supp. 433 (D.N.Y. 1958) (conviction for petty larceny in 1914, at the age of 16 or 17, for which noncitizen was committed to a juvenile house of refuge rather than to a prison, did not constitute conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude); Matter of CM, 5 I. & N. Dec. 327 (BIA 1953); Matter of Ramirez-Rivero, 18 I. & N. Dec. 135 (BIA 1981); Matter of N, 3 I. & N. Dec. 723 (BIA 1949) (juvenile delinquency not considered deportable conviction).

[24] Counsel may also try challenging a conviction on a jurisdictional basis where a noncitizen client claims he was a juvenile at the time of the conviction.  See United States v. Ceja-Prado, 333 F.3d 1046 (9th Cir. June 25, 2003) (case remanded for determination whether defendant was actually a juvenile at the time he entered his guilty plea, since federal courts have no jurisdiction over certain juvenile prosecutions).