In Matter of Roldan,[4] the Board of Immigration Appeals relied on the new IIRAIRA statutory definition of conviction[5] to hold that a state court action to “expunge, dismiss, cancel, vacate, discharge or otherwise remove a guilty plea or other record of guilt or conviction by operation of a state rehabilitative statute” does not eliminate the conviction for immigration purposes.

 

This decision is limited to situations in which a state court clears a state conviction from the record pursuant to a “state rehabilitative statute,” rather than on a ground of legal invalidity.[6]

 

In Lujan-Armendarez v. INS, the Ninth Circuit overturned Roldan on equal protection grounds, holding that the new IIRAIRA definition of conviction did not invalidate the Federal First Offender Act (FFOA), and Equal Protection therefore dictates that state expungements continue to eliminate all immigration consequences of convictions of first offense simple possession of controlled substances where the defendant would have been eligible for FFOA treatment if prosecuted in federal court.[7]

 

            The rule has been extended to convictions of possession of drug paraphernalia and perhaps other more minor controlled-substance convictions of offenses that are not prohibited under federal law, such as being under the influence of drugs, or being in a place in which drugs are used.[8]

 

The Ninth Circuit has upheld Roldan in all other respects.  In Murillo-Espinoza v. INS,[9] the Ninth Circuit concluded that an expunged theft conviction with a sentence of one year or more still qualified as an aggravated felony.  With cursory consideration, the court upheld the BIA’s position that expungements do not eliminate the immigration effects as an exercise of Chevron deference to agency determinations.[10] 

 

The Board of Immigration Appeals has since reaffirmed its position in Roldan that expungements do not operate to negate a conviction’s immigration effects.  In Matter of Salazar-Regino,[11] the Board considered whether to extend the Lujan decision nationwide and, over a vigorous dissent,[12] declined to do so.  Rather, the Board found that Congress intended to abolish the effectiveness of expungements for all classes of convictions and did not provide for an exception for first-offense drug cases.  It also rejected the premises that equal protection compelled honoring an expungement or rehabilitative dismissal in state court if the defendant would have been eligible for first-offender treatment in federal court, as was held in Lujan. 

 

The Board is bound to apply circuit court precedent in that jurisdiction.  Therefore, Lujan remains good law in the Ninth Circuit, unless overruled en banc by that court.  Although the issue should not be abandoned, it does not appear likely that other courts of appeals will follow Lujan in the wake of the Salazar-Regino decision.  Opinions from the First, Second, Fifth and Seventh Circuits on the same and related questions indicate they will likely follow the BIA approach.[13]

 

Therefore, counsel in jurisdictions other than the Ninth Circuit cannot rely upon an expungement to eliminate the immigration effects of a conviction, even as to those drug cases that would have been prosecuted in federal court under the FFOA.  In the Ninth Circuit, convictions and sentences that are vacated under state rehabilitative statutes will continue to exist to trigger adverse immigration consequences except to the extent that Lujan and its progeny dictate otherwise.

 

            Outside the zone of first-offense minor controlled substance convictions, it is thus necessary to vacate a conviction on some ground of legal invalidity, rather than under a state rehabilitative statute, in order to ensure its elimination as a trigger for adverse immigration consequences.

 

In Beltran-Leon v. INS,[14] the Ninth Circuit handed down a troublesome and confused decision holding that a California state-court decision vacating a drug conviction pursuant to a writ of audita querela did not remove the conviction for immigration purposes, because the judgment was not vacated on a ground of legal invalidity.  The court therefore held the BIA was correct in denying the motion to reopen deportation proceedings to allow application for adjustment of status, and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.  See Chapter 4, supra.

[4] Matter of Roldan, 22 I. & N. Dec. 486 (BIA 1999) (en banc).

[5] INA § 101(a)(48)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(48)(A).

[6] Matter of Roldan, 22 I. & N. Dec. 486 (BIA 1999) (en banc).

[7] Lujan-Armendariz v. INS, 222 F.3d 728 (9th Cir. 2000).

[8] Lujan-Armendariz v. INS, 222 F.3d 728 (9th Cir. 2000); Cardenas-Uriarte v. INS, 227 F.3d 1132 (9th Cir. 2000).

[9] Murillo-Espinoza v. INS, 261 F.3d 771 (9th Cir. 2001).

[10] Judicial deference to an agency decision is governed by Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842-453 (1984).

[11] Matter of Salazar-Regino, 23 I. & N. Dec. 223 (BIA 2002) (en banc).

[12] The dissent maintained that the Roldan decision was wrongly decided and, that by enacting the definition of “conviction” in INA § 101(a)(48)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(48)(A), Congress intended only to modify BIA precedent so that a guilty plea is sufficient to establish a conviction, even where adjudication of guilt is withheld.  Moreover, Congress gave no indication that it intended to supercede the FFOA when setting forth a definition of “conviction,” according to the dissent.  Matter of Salazar-Regino, 23 I. & N. Dec. 223 (BIA 2002) (Rosenberg, Board Member, dissenting).  A separate dissenting opinion by Board Member Moscato persuasively emphasized the importance of the FFOA as establishing a safety-value so that a first-offense drug conviction will not destroy a young life, which is so often the case for legal permanent residents who are deported based on one drug conviction.  Matter of Salazar-Regino, 23 I. & N. Dec. 223 (BIA 2002) (Moscato, Board Member, dissenting). 

[13] Griffiths v. INS, 243 F.3d 45 (1st Cir. 2001); Herrera-Inirio v. INS, 208 F.3d 299 (1st Cir. 2000); United States v. Campbell, 167 F.3d 94 (2d Cir. 1999); Moosa v. INS, 171 F.3d 994 (5th Cir. 1999); Gill v. Ashcroft, 335 F.3d 574, 579 (7th Cir. July 8, 2003).

[14] Beltran-Leon v. INS, 134 F.3d 1379 (9th Cir. 1998).

POST CON RELIEF - STATE REHABILITATIVE RELIEF - INEFFECTIVE TO ELIMINATE CONVICTION FOR IMMIGRATION PURPOSES, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM A CONVICTION THAT HAS BEEN VACATED ON THE MERITS
Dickerson v. New Banner Institute, Inc., 460 U.S. 103, 115 (1983) (Federal firearms disabilities applied with respect to one who pled guilty to a State offense punishable by imprisonment for more than one year, even if the record of the State criminal proceeding was subsequently expunged following a successfully served term of probation: "expunction under state law does not alter the historical fact of the conviction, . . . does not alter the legality of the previous conviction[,] and does not signify that the defendant was innocent of the crime to which he pleaded guilty"); United States v. Smith, 96 F.3d 1350, 1351 (11th Cir. 1996) (per curiam); United States v. Mejias, 47 F.3d 401, 403-404 (11th Cir. 1995); see also United States v. Norbury, 492 F.3d 1012, 1014-1015 (9th Cir. 2007); United States v. Miller, 434 F.3d 820, 824 (6th Cir. 2006).

BIA

POST CON RELIEF - MODIFICATION OF RECORD OF CONVICTION SOLELY FOR IMMIGRATION PURPOSES MAY NOT BE AFFECTIVE
Matter of Velazquez-Herrera, 24 I. & N. Dec. 503, ___ (BIA May 20, 2008) ("We are mindful of the fact that the respondent entered his plea to a charge that clearly identified his victim as a child. The language of that charge may well have been significant because the Supreme Court has explained that "the details of a generically limited charging document" are generally sufficient "in any sort of case" to establish "whether the plea had necessarily rested on the fact identifying the [offense] as generic." Shepard v. United States, supra, at 21. Yet as all parties recognize, we are precluded from relying on the original charge because, after these proceedings commenced, the State prosecutor removed all traces of the victim's juvenile status from the amended information and then interposed the expurgated, back-dated charge into the conviction record.").

POST CON RELIEF - EFFECTIVE ORDER - MODIFICATION OF RECORD OF CONVICTION
Matter of Velazquez-Herrera, 24 I. & N. Dec. 503, __ (BIA May 20, 2008) ("We are mindful of the fact that the respondent entered his plea to a charge that clearly identified his victim as a child. The language of that charge may well have been significant because the Supreme Court has explained that "the details of a generically limited charging document" are generally sufficient "in any sort of case" to establish "whether the plea had necessarily rested on the fact identifying the [offense] as generic." Shepard v. United States, supra, at 21. Yet as all parties recognize, we are precluded from relying on the original charge because, after these proceedings commenced, the State prosecutor removed all traces of the victim's juvenile status from the amended information and then interposed the expurgated, back-dated charge into the conviction record.").

CONVICTION - FOREIGN CONVICTION NEED NOT BE RETURNED UNDER ALL US CONSTITUTIONAL PROCEDURAL GUARANTEES
In 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), the BIA held a finding of petty theft under Oregon minor offense procedure did not constitute a conviction for immigration purposes, since it was not a criminal proceeding in which the normal procedural rights, such as jury trial, the right to appointed counsel, and the presumption of innocence were not respected. The Board, however, distinguished foreign convictions: "[N]othing in our decision should be taken as asserting that a foreign conviction must adhere to all the requirements of the United States Constitution applicable to criminal trials, including that relating to the requisite standard of proof. Rather, we find that Congress intended that the proceeding must, at a minimum, be criminal in nature under the governing laws of the prosecuting jurisdiction, whether that may be in this country or in a foreign one." (Id. at ___ [footnote omitted].) The Board also 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).

CONVICTION - MILITARY OFFENSES - NO JURY TRIAL RIGHT
Convictions rendered by minor military informal procedures, such as Captain's Mast, should not be considered as criminal convictions for immigration purposes, since the most fundamental criminal procedures guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution are not respected. See Matter of Eslamizar, 23 I. & N. Dec. 684 (BIA Oct. 19, 2004)(en banc)(guilty finding of third-degree theft, in violation of Ore. Rev. Stat. 164.043, by court under procedures of Ore. Rev. Stat. 153.076, punishable by a maximum fine of $600 but no jail at all, does not constitute a conviction under INA 101(a)(48)(A), INA 101(a)(48)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(48)(A), 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). This reasoning may extend as well to the findings of courts martial, in which the right to jury trial is not respected.

CONVICTION - REQUIREMENT OF A CRIME
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).      In California, certain misdemeanor offenses, notably petty theft in violation of Penal Code 484(a), 488, can be prosecuted as misdemeanors or infractions. Penal Code 17(d), 19.8 (giving list of offenses). The infraction is similar to the Oregon petty offense procedure held in Eslamizar not to be a conviction in several important respects:      (1) "An infraction is not punishable by imprisonment." Penal Code 19.6.
     (2) "A person charged with an infraction shall not be entitled to a trial by jury." (Ibid.)
     (3) There is no right to the assistance of court-appointed counsel. (Ibid.)      There is one difference, however: The defendant must be proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. See Penal Code 19.7 (. . . all provisions of law relating to misdemeanors shall apply to infractions including . . . burden of proof.").      On balance, however, the California infraction procedure cannot be said to be a criminal procedure since no punishment of incarceration is permissible, there is no right to jury trial, and there is no right to the assistance of court-appointed counsel if the defendant is unable to afford counsel. In Eslamizar, the Board en banc held "that by 'judgment of guilt' Congress most likely intended to refer to a judgment in a criminal proceeding, that is, a trial or other proceeding whose purpose is to determine whether the accused committed a crime and which provides the constitutional safeguards normally attendant upon a criminal adjudication." (Id. at ___.) Even though the burden of proof for an infraction is beyond a reasonable doubt, that single factor should be insufficient to convert a proceeding without the right to a jury trial, without the right to appointed counsel, and for which no jail sentence is permissible, into " judgment in a criminal proceeding, that is, a trial or other proceeding whose purpose is to determine whether the accused committed a crime and which provides the constitutional safeguards normally attendant upon a criminal adjudication." (Ibid.) Therefore, an infraction under California law should not be considered a criminal conviction, for immigration purposes, under Eslamizar.

First Circuit

POST CON RELIEF - STATE REHABILITATIVE RELIEF - INEFFECTIVE TO ELIMINATE CONVICTION FOR IMMIGRATION PURPOSES
Herrera-Inirio v. INS, 208 F.3d 299, 304-06 (1st Cir. 2000) (noting that the language of 1101(a)(48)(A) "leaves nothing to the imagination" and that state rehabilitative programs that do not vacate a conviction on the merits "have no bearing in determining whether an alien is to be considered convicted under section 1101(a)(48)(A)."); United States v. Campbell, 167 F.3d 94, 96-98 (2d Cir. 1999) (federal sentencing case); Acosta v. Ashcroft, 341 F.3d 218, 222 (3d Cir. 2003) (stating, in case where petitioner successfully completed a one year probation sentence for a heroin possession charge in state court that would have made him eligible for FFOA relief had he been prosecuted by the federal government, that "[t]his language unambiguously points to the conclusion that the disposition of Acosta's criminal case in [state court pursuant to a state law permitting dismissal of charge after completion of probation without verdict] constitutes a conviction "); Moosa v. INS, 171 F.3d 994, 1005-06 (5th Cir.1999) (state delayed adjudication of guilt); Gill v. Ashcroft, 335 F.3d 574, 577 (7th Cir. 2003) ("Every court that has considered the subject believes that 1101(a)(48)(A) governs the handling of repeat offenders and that expungements (or restorations of civil rights) under state law do not negate a conviction for purposes of immigration law."); Murillo-Espinoza v. INS, 261 F.3d 771, 773-74 (9th Cir. 2001) (state conviction expunged); United States v. Zamudio, 314 F.3d 517, 522 (10th Cir. 2002) (adopting plain meaning of 8 U.S.C 1101(a)(48)(A) when interpreting U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)); Resendiz-Alcaraz v. United States Atty General, 383 F.3d 1262, 1269(11th Cir. Sept. 10, 2004) ("clear language of the statute [INA 101(a)(48)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(48)(A) definition of conviction] includes [as convictions] state convictions expunged under state rehabilitative laws").

Second Circuit

POST CON RELIEF " CONVICTION VACATED SOLELY FOR REHABILITATIVE REASONS
Sutherland v. Holder, 769 F.3d 144 (2d Cir. Oct. 8, 2014) (Arizona conviction for attempted possession for sale of four or more pounds of marijuana was vacated by an Arizona state court, but remains valid for federal immigration and removability purposes, since the order vacating the conviction was obtained under Arizona Revised Statutes 13-907 solely for rehabilitative reasons).

POST CON RELIEF " REHABILITATIVE RELIEF " INEFFECTIVE UNLESS BASED ON LEGAL DEFECT
Wellington v. Holder, 623 F.3d 115 (2d Cir. Oct. 20, 2011) (No. 09-4111) (a Certificate of Relief or similar state rehabilitative treatment does not preclude use of the underlying offense as a basis for removal or as a basis for ineligibility for relief, where the state treatment was not related to a procedural or substantive defect in the criminal proceedings).

POST CON RELIEF " STATE REHABILITATIVE RELIEF " FEDERAL FIRST OFFENDER ACT
Wellington v. Holder, 623 F.3d 115 (2d Cir. Oct. 20, 2010) (We hold that an alien who receives state rehabilitative treatment for a removable offense under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) remains "convicted" of that offense pursuant to the definition of "conviction" in the Immigration and Nationality Act, see INA 101(a)(48)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(48)(A), even if the alien would have been eligible for relief under the Federal First Offender Act had she been prosecuted in federal court. See 18 U.S.C. 3607.).

POST CON RELIEF - CONVICTION - EFFECTIVE ORDER - NONCITIZEN REMAINS CONVICTED FOR IMMIGRATION PURPOSES EVEN IF A STATE CONVICTION HAS BEEN VACATED UNDER A REHABILITATIVE STATUTE
Saleh v. Gonzales, ___ F.3d ___, 2007 WL 2033497 (2d Cir. July 17, 2007) ("the BIA has reasonably concluded that an alien remains convicted of a removable offense for federal immigration purposes when a state vacates the predicate a conviction pursuant to a rehabilitative statute."), citing Pickering v. Gonzales, 465 F.3d 263, 266 (6th Cir. 2006), vacating Matter of Pickering, 23 I. & N. Dec. 621 (BIA 2003); Alim v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 1239, 1249-50 (11th Cir.2006); Pinho v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 193, 195 (3d Cir. 2005); Ramos v. Gonzales, 414 F.3d 800, 805-06 (7th Cir. 2005); Cruz-Garza v. Ashcroft, 396 F.3d 1125, 1129 (10th Cir. 2005); Resendiz-Alcaraz v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 1262, 1268-71 (11th Cir. 2004); Murillo-Espinoza v. INS, 261 F.3d 771, 774 (9th Cir. 2001); Herrera-Inirio v. INS, 208 F.3d 299, 305 (1st Cir. 2000), and following Sanusi v. Gonzales, 474 F.3d 341, 342-43 (6th Cir. 2007) ("We deny the petitions for review on the ground that the state court's vacation of Sanusi's conviction was ineffective for immigration purposes because it was done solely for the purpose of ameliorating the immigration consequences to petitioner.") (citing Zaitona v. INS, 9 F.3d 432 (6th Cir. 1993); Ali v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 722, 728-29 (7th Cir. 2005).

JUDICIAL REVIEW - BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS
Chhetry v. US Dep't of Justice, 490 F.3d 196 (2d Cir. Jun. 20, 2007) (BIA may not take administrative notice of facts without affording other party to rebut the inferences drawn from those facts).

Lower Courts of Second Circuit

EXPUNGEMENT - FALSE STATEMENT FOR IMMIGRATION BENEFIT
Szpak v. DHS, __ F.Supp.2d __, 2007 WL 2128366 (E.D.N.Y. Jul. 25, 2007) (the fact that applicant stated that he had not been arrested [after prior indication that he had] was not an intentional misstatement to the government where applicant could have believed that the expungement of the records of those arrests meant that he could state to the government that he had no longer been arrested). http://bibdaily.com/pdfs/Szpak%207-25-07.pdf

Fifth Circuit

POST CON - EXPUNGEMENT FOREIGN
Danso v. Gonzales, 489 F.3d 709 (5th Cir. June 15, 2007) (rejecting equal protection argument that noncitizens British expungement should be given effect for immigration purposes where noncitizen could hypothetically have availed himself of the expungement procedures set forth in the Federal First Offenders Act (FFOA)).

POST-CONVICTION RELIEF - LUJAN EXPUNGEMENT - EXPUNGEMENT OF SECOND CONVICTION EFFECTIVE WHERE FIRST CONVICTION NOT FINAL AT TIME OF SECOND CONVICTION
Smith v. Gonzales, ___ F.3d ___, 2006 WL 3012856 (5th Cir. Oct. 24, 2006) (for purposes of the Controlled Substances Act, a conviction does not become final until time for direct appeal and time for discretionary review have elapsed).

NOTE: This case can be cited to support the position that a second controlled substances offense may be expunged under Lujan in the Ninth Circuit as long as the first conviction had not become final by the time of the second conviction.

CONVICTION - DEFERRED ADJUDICATION - TEXAS - DEFERRED ADJUDICATION CONSTITUTES A CONVICTION FOR IMMIGRATION PURPOSES
Salazar-Regino v. Trominski, ___ F.3d ___ (5th Cir. June 30, 2005) (Texas deferred adjudication following guilty plea to felony possession of marijuana constituted a conviction for removal purposes under INA 101(a)(48)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(48)(A), even though it did not constitute grounds for removal under the BIA law in place at the time the plea of guilty was entered), following Moosa v. INS, 171 F.3d 994, 1005-1006 (5th Cir. 1999).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/5th/0341492p.pdf

Seventh Circuit

POST-CON RELIEF " STATE REHABILITATIVE RELIEF " EXPUNGEMENT " REHABILITATIVE EXPUNGEMENT REMAINS A CONVICTION FOR IMMIGRATION PURPOSES
Estrada-Ramos v. Holder, 611 F.3d 318 (7th Cir. 2010) (expungement of a conviction for a drug charge involving cocaine upheld as a conviction for INA purposes, because guilty plea was set aside and dismissed for ameliorative purposes, not for any procedural or substantial defects in the proceedings.), following Ali v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 722, 727 (7th Cir. 2005), Matter of Pickering, 23 I. & N. Dec. 621, 624 (BIA 2003). PCN:8.3;CD4:11.18;AF:6.12;CMT3:10.11;SH:4.27

POST CON RELIEF - CONVICTION VACATED PURSUANT TO EXTRAORDINARY MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL, FOLLOWED BY DISMISSAL OF CHARGES, REMAINED A CONVICTION FOR IMMIGRATION PURPOSES SINCE NONCITIZEN FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT CONVICTION HAD BEEN VACATED BASED ON A PROCEDURAL OR SUBSTANTIVE DEFECT IN THE UNDERLYING CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
Ali v. U.S. Attorney General, ___ F.3d ___, 2006 WL 709870 (7th Cir. Mar. 22, 2006) (per curiam) (Georgia conviction of two counts of child molestation, followed by the granting of an extraordinary motion for a new trial, and the State of Georgia's motion to nolle prosse charges, continued to constitute a conviction under INA 101(a)(48)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(48)(A), for removal purposes, since noncitizen failed to establish that conviction had been vacated based on a procedural or substantive defect in the underlying criminal proceedings; noncitizen bears burden to show conviction was vacated on a basis of legal invalidity). This decision violates the long-standing rule that the government bears the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence every fact necessary to prove deportability. Woodby v. INS, 385 U.S. 276 (1966).

Ninth Circuit

POST CON RELIEF - EFFECT OF VACATUR - REHABILITATIVE PURPOSE
Mendoza v. Holder, 606 F.3d 1137 (9th Cir. Jun. 2, 2010) (conviction still exists after vacatur granted for rehabilitative purposes only; any vacatur granted under Ariz.Rev.Stat. 13-907 is rehabilitative, and therefore still a conviction for immigration purposes), following Murillo-Espinoza v. INS, 261 F.3d 771, 773-74 (9th Cir. 2001).

POST CON RELIEF - STATE REHABILITATIVE RELIEF
United States v. Alba-Flores, 577 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. Aug. 18, 2009) (defendant's prior expunged California convictions were not expunged for purposes of the Sentencing Guidelines, because under California law the expunged convictions in question could still be used at a later time in a variety of circumstances).

POST CON RELIEF - STATE REHABILITATIVE RELIEF - REHABILITATIVE RELIEF DOES NOT ELIMINATE CONVICTION FOR PURPOSES OF IMPOSING FEDERAL CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE SENTENCE ENHANCEMENT
United States v. Norbury, 492 F.3d 1012, ___ (9th Cir. Jun. 25, 2007) (determination of whether current controlled substances offense was committed after a prior conviction for a felony drug offense has become final, so as to enhance federal sentence under 21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)((A)-(D) is made under federal law, not state law; under federal law: "An expunged or dismissed state conviction qualifies as a prior conviction if the expungement or dismissal does not alter the legality of the conviction or does not represent that the defendant was actually innocent of the crime."), following Dickerson v. New Banner Inst., Inc., 460 U.S. 103, 115, 103 S.Ct. 986, 74 L.Ed.2d 845 (1983).

POST CON RELIEF - STATE REHABILITATIVE RELIEF - LOPEZ STRENGTHENS ARGUMENT THAT STATE REHABILITATIVE RELIEF ANALOGOUS TO THE FEDERAL FIRST OFFENDER ACT ELIMINATES QUALIFYING CONVICTIONS FOR IMMIGRATION PURPOSES
United States v. Norbury, 492 F.3d 1012, ___ (9th Cir. Jun. 25, 2007) (determination of whether current controlled substances offense was committed after a prior conviction for a felony drug offense has become final, so as to enhance federal sentence under 21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)((A)-(D) is made under federal law, not state law; under federal law: "An expunged or dismissed state conviction qualifies as a prior conviction if the expungement or dismissal does not alter the legality of the conviction or does not represent that the defendant was actually innocent of the crime."), following Dickerson v. New Banner Inst., Inc., 460 U.S. 103, 115, 103 S.Ct. 986, 74 L.Ed.2d 845 (1983).

POST CON RELIEF - STATE REHABILITATIVE RELIEF - REHABILITATIVE RELIEF IS GENERALLY INEFFECTIVE TO ELIMINATE A CONVICTION FOR IMMIGRATION PURPOSES
Ramirez-Castro v. INS, 287 F.3d 1172, 1174 (9th Cir. 2002) ("[f]or immigration purposes, a person continues to stand convicted of an offense notwithstanding a later expungement under a state's rehabilitative statute.").

POST CON RELIEF - STATE REHABILITATIVE RELIEF - REHABILITATIVE RELIEF IS GENERALLY INEFFECTIVE TO ELIMINATE A CONVICTION FOR IMMIGRATION PURPOSES
Ramirez-Castro v. INS, 287 F.3d 1172, 1174 (9th Cir. 2002) ("[f]or immigration purposes, a person continues to stand convicted of an offense notwithstanding a later expungement under a state's rehabilitative statute.").

POST CON RELIEF - STATE REHABILITATIVE RELIEF - STATE EXPUNGEMENT STATUTE DOES NOT HAVE TO BE EQUIVALENT TO FFOA TO ELIMINATE IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES OF CONVICTION
Under Garberding v. INS, 30 F.3d 1187, 1190 (9th Cir. 1994), the state expungement statute does not have to be identical to the FFOA: "We rejected this narrow approach in Garberding v. INS, 30 F.3d 1187, 1190 (9th Cir. 1994). Garberding involved Montana's expungement statute, which was not limited to first-time simple drug possession offenses but allowed expungement of a broad range of more serious offenses. Id. at 1189. Considering Garberding's challenge on Equal Protection grounds, we concluded that the INS had no rational basis for treating her differently simply because Montana's statute covered a broader range of offenses than did the FFOA, id. at 1190-91, and held that "persons who received the benefit of a state expungement law were not subject to deportation as long as they could have received the benefit of the federal Act if they had been prosecuted under federal law." Chavez-Perez v Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1284, 1288 (9th Cir. 2004). This interpretation accepted in Matter of Manrique, 21 I. & N. Dec. 58, 64 (BIA 1995), which requires only that the defendant be a simple possession first offender and that a "court has entered an order pursuant to a state rehabilitative statute under which the alien's criminal proceedings have been deferred pending successful completion of probation or the proceedings have been or will be dismissed after probation." Matter of Manrique, 21 I. & N. Dec. 58, 64 (BIA 1995). Therefore, the statute expungement statute need not be equivalent to the FFOA if the conduct could have been covered under the FFOA if the case had been prosecuted in federal court, and rehabilitative treatment resulting in dismissal was granted. Thanks to Jonathan Moore.

Other

POST CON RELIEF " EFFECTIVE POST-CONVICTION ORDER " CONVICTION
In an EOIR Newsletter, an article describes the difference in immigration consequences between a conviction vacated on a ground of legal invalidity, and one expunged solely for purposes of rehabilitation or to avoid immigration consequences: The expungement of a record of conviction is [t]he removal of a conviction (esp. for a first offense) from a persons criminal record. Blacks Law Dictionary 621 (8th ed. 2004). A vacatur is [t]he act of annulling or setting aside [or a] rule or order by which a proceeding is vacated. Id. at 1546. In the immigration context, the difference between a vacatur and an expungement involves intent. Criminal courts typically expunge convictions in order to rehabilitate offenders or, in the case of noncitizens, to prevent negative immigration consequences. Criminal courts typically vacate convictions because the convictions are substantively defective, for example a due process or the right to counsel violations at trial. Accordingly, this article uses the term vacatur to mean removal of a conviction because of substantive defects in the conviction and uses the term expungement to mean removal of a conviction to rehabilitate or to prevent immigration consequences. Some courts use the terms vacatur and expungement differently, however, and some courts use entirely different terms to express these concepts. The Act is silent as to whether a criminal conviction that has been vacated or expunged has immigration consequences. The Attorney General, the Board, and, with one exception, the circuit courts of appeals have adopted the following rule: [I]f a court with jurisdiction vacates a conviction based on a defect in the underlying criminal proceedings, the respondent no longer has a conviction within the meaning of section 101(a) (48)(A). If, however, a court vacates [or expunges] a conviction for reasons unrelated to the merits of the underlying criminal proceedings, the respondent remains convicted for immigration purposes. Matter of Pickering, 23 I&N Dec. 621, 624 (BIA 2003) (footnote omitted). Accord Pickering v. Gonzales, 465 F.3d 263, 266 (6th Cir. 2006); Alim v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 1239, 1248"49 (11th Cir. 2006); Pinho v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 193, 215 (3d Cir. 2005); Cruz-Garza v. Ashcroft, 396 F.3d 1125, 1129 (10th Cir. 2005); Sandoval v. INS, 240 F.3d 577, 583 (7th Cir. 2001); Matter of Marroquin-Garcia, 23 I&N Dec. 705, 713 (A.G. 2005). The Fifth Circuit, by contrast, has held that convictions vacated for any reason, including substantive defects, retain their immigration consequences. Garcia-Maldonado v. Gonzales, 491 F.3d 284, 291 (5th Cir. 2007). Josh Adams, Treatment of Criminal Convictions in the Immigration Context, 2 Immigration Law Advisor (October 2008) (emphasis in original), http://www.justice.gov/eoir/vll/ILA-Newsletter/ILA%20Vol%202/vol2no10.pdf.

POST CON RELIEF - STATE REHABILITATIVE RELIEF - FIREARMS CONVICTION IS NOT ELIMINATED BY CALIFORNIA EXPUNGEMENT FOR DEPORTATION PURPOSES
Matter of Marroquin, 23 I. & N. Dec. 705 (AG Jan. 18, 2005) (federal definition of "conviction" at INA 101(a)(48)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(48)(A) (2000), encompasses convictions, other than those involving first-time simple possession of narcotics, that have been vacated or set aside pursuant to state rehabilitative relief statute for reasons that do not go to the legal propriety of the original judgment, and that continue to impose some restraints or penalties upon the defendant's liberty, so a noncitizen whose firearms conviction was expunged pursuant to California Penal Code 1203.4(a) remains "convicted" for immigration purposes).

POST CON RELIEF - STATE REHABILITATIVE RELIEF - FIREARMS CONVICTION IS NOT ELIMINATED BY CALIFORNIA EXPUNGEMENT FOR DEPORTATION PURPOSES
Matter of Luviano, 23 I. & N. Dec. 718 (AG Jan. 18, 2005) (firearms conviction expunged pursuant to California state rehabilitative relief statute, Penal Code 1203.4(a), remained a conviction for immigration purposes under the statutory definition of conviction, INA 101(a)(48)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(48)(A)).

POST CON RELIEF - EXUNGEMENT POST CON RELIEF - EFFECTIVE ORDER VACATING CONVICTION
James A.R. Nafziger & Michael Yimesgen, The Effect of Expungement on Removability of Non-Citizens, 36 U. Mich. J.L. Reform 915, 930 (2003).

POST CON RELIEF - JUDICIAL RECOMMENDATION AGAINST DEPORTATION - IMMIGRATION EFFECT
There is a question whether a CMT conviction, for which a JRAD was validly obtained before November 29, 1990, can trigger deportation for multiple CMT convictions when combined with a later (or earlier) second CMT. Immigration counsel could argue that under the former statute, still enforced, deportation cannot be based on a CMT for which a JRAD was granted. The government can argue that the CMT for which a JRAD was granted forms one CMT of a two-CMT deportation ground. They could analogize to those cases that hold if a noncitizen has CMTs that trigger deportation, and then respondent obtains a waiver of deportation for them under former INA 212(c) waiver, and the client suffers another CMT conviction, the old waived CMT can be combined with the new CMT conviction to trigger deportation for multiple CMTs. The waiver does not eliminate the old CMT. It merely waivers deportation for that ground and that ground only. The two-CMT deportation ground is a different ground, and both CMT convictions continue to exist, and so can trigger deportation. The question would be whether counsel can distinguish those 212(c) cases.

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.

POST CON RELIEF - EFFECTIVE ORDER - STATE REHABILITATIVE RELIEF
Argument: An expungement or other rehabilitative relief should be effective to eliminate any conviction for purposes of eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal, because these statutes use the term "judgment of conviction" rather than "conviction." Since INA 101(a)(48)(A) merely defines "conviction," and discusses when a disposition that is not a judgment of conviction will constitute a "conviction" for immigration law, it arguably do not define what constitutes a "judgment of conviction" and 101(a)(48)(A) does not control in asylum and withholding context. Therefore, Matter of Roldan and subsequent cases holding that rehabilitative relief does not eliminate a conviction do not apply in this context. Thanks to Manny Vargas. Immigration counsel can also argue that post-conviction relief effectively eliminates the conviction. Thanks to Katherine Brady.

PRACTICE ADVISORY " POST CON RELIEF " TEXAS " GROUNDS " INVALID PLEA " INEFFECTIVE ASSITANCE OF COUNSEL "CONVICTION " DEFERRED ADJUDICATION
Texas law conflicts with federal immigration law as to whether deferred adjudication constitutes a conviction. Ex parte Welch, 981 S.W.2d 183, 185 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (Deferred adjudication is not a conviction.). But see Matter of Punu, 22 I. & N. Dec. 224, 230 (B.I.A. 1998) (holding that deferred adjudication in Texas constitutes a conviction for purposes of immigration law). This may give Texas defendants a ground of legal invalidity by which to set aside their convictions, if they were incorrectly informed the Deferred Adjudication disposition does not constitute a conviction, whereas it does constitute a conviction under federal immigration law. This may render the plea not knowing, intelligent, free or voluntary. It may also constitute a ground of ineffective assistance of counsel, in violation of Padilla v. Kentucky, because of affirmative misadvice or failure to advise that this disposition does indeed constitute a conviction for immigration purposes.