(B)  Recipients of S Visas for Cooperation With Law Enforcement: Committed Within 10 Years of Last Admission.  If the noncitizen was admitted to the United States by virtue of an S Visa, which is granted to persons who provide valuable assistance to law enforcement in criminal investigations and prosecutions,[1039] one CMT conviction will trigger deportation if committed within 10 years, rather than five years, after the person’s admission.[1040]  Because so few S Visas are granted, however, this situation seldom arises.

[1039] INA § 245(j), 8 U.S.C. § 1255(j).

[1040] INA § 237(a)(2)(A)(i)(I), 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i)(I).

BIA

ADMISSION - CRIMES OF MORAL TURPITUDE
Matter of Carrillo-Arrillo, 25 I. & N. Dec. 99 (BIA Oct. 21 2009) (pursuant to the Cuban Refugee Adjustment Act of November 2, 1966, Pub. L. No. 89-732, 80 Stat. 1161, 1, the date at which a Cuban noncitizen was paroled in the United States counts as the date of "admission" as a lawful permanent resident; noncitizen who was paroled into the United States in 1999, but did not adjust status until 2001, was not deportable as a noncitizen who had committed a CMT within 5 years of admission based on offenses committed in 2004).

CRIME OF MORAL TURPITUDE - DEPORTABILITY - DATE OF ADMISSION INCLUDES DATE OF ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS
Matter of Shanu, 23 I. & N. Dec. 754 (BIA 2005), vacated by Aremu v. Dept. of Homeland Security, 450 F.3d 578 (4th Cir. 2006) (phrase "date of admission" in INA 237(a)(2)(A)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(i) (2000), refers to, among other things, the date on which a previously admitted alien is lawfully admitted for permanent residence by means of adjustment of status), overruled by Aremu v. DHS, 450 F.3d 578 (4th Cir. Jun. 19, 2006).
http://www.usdoj.gov/eoir/vll/intdec/vol23/3513.pdf

CRIME OF MORAL TURPITUDE " INADMISSIBILITY " FIVE-YEAR CLOCK
Practice Advisory on Matter of Alyazji, 23 I. & N. Dec. 754 (BIA 2005) (Adjustment of Status Following an Admission Does Not Re-Start the Five- Year Clock for Purposes of the Moral Turpitude Deportation Ground), overruling in part Matter of Shanu, 23 I&N Dec. 754 (BIA 2005) Kathy Brady, Immigrant Legal Resource Center, Feb. 28, 2011. http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2011/02/practice-advisory-on-.html

Fourth Circuit

RELIEF - ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS - ADMISSION
Aremu v. DHS, 450 F.3d 578 (4th Cir. 2006), vacating Matter of Shanu, 23 I. & N. Dec. 754 (BIA 2005), vacated by Aremu v. Dept. of Homeland Security, 450 F.3d 578 (4th Cir. 2006) (for noncitizen previously admitted to the United States, the date of adjustment of status does not constitute a new "admission" for purposes of determining whether the noncitizen is deportable for having committed a CMT within five years of admission, under INA 237(a)(2)(A)(i)), overruling Matter of Shanu, 23 I. & N. Dec. 754 (BIA 2005). Note: The court cited Abdelqadar v. Gonzalez, 413 F.3d F.3d 668 (7th Cir. 2005), and Shivaraman v. Ashcroft, 360 F.3d 1142 (9th Cir. 2004) as making the same holding, although Shivaraman concerned a noncitizen who (unlike Shanu), had never fallen out of status, and Abdelqadar was arguably dica. The Fourth Circuit explicitly stated that the decision did not reach the issue of whether adjustment of status qualified as an "admission" for a noncitizen who entered the United States illegally, and was therefore never previously admitted. See, e.g., Ocampo-Duran v. Ashcroft, 254 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2001); Rosas-Ramirez, 22 I. & N. Dec. 616 (BIA 1999).

Ninth Circuit

CRIMES OF MORAL TURPITUDE - DEPORTATION FOR SINGLE CMT - NOLO PLEA NOT SUFFICIENT BY ITSELF TO SHOW OFFENSE "COMMITTED" WITHIN FIVE YEARS OF ADMISSION
United States v. Nguyen, 465 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir. Oct. 18, 2006) (federal conviction under 8 U.S.C. 1253(b) for willful failure to comply with a term of release under supervision -- which required that he not "commit any crimes" -- is reversed where misdemeanor nolo contendere convictions were legally insufficient to support his conviction, because a nolo contendere plea is not an admission of guilt to the underlying crime, a conviction based on such a plea does not prove that he "commit[ted] any crimes;" the convictions should not have been admitted under Federal Rules of Evidence 410, 803(22), or 803(8) for the purpose of proving that he actually committed the underlying crimes charged).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0630011p.pdf