Criminal Defense of Immigrants

In the alternative, the statutory definition of conviction can be satisfied by a plea of guilty or no contest. [28]  A plea of guilty entered without any factual admission of guilt in order to avoid risk of greater punishment, known as an Alford plea,[29] also constitutes a guilty plea for purposes of establishing a conviction for immigration purposes.[30]

No other plea meets the statutory requirements of a plea.  For example, a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity does not meet the statutory definition, unless it qualifies under the “admission of sufficient facts” alternative.  See § 7.19, infra.[31]

[28] INA § 101(a)(48)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(48)(A), as enacted by IIRAIRA § 322(a)(1).  See Canada v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 560 (2d Cir. May 18, 2006) (Connecticut nolo contendere plea results in conviction under INA § 101(a)(48)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(48)(A) for removal purposes); Quireshi v. INS, 519 F.2d 1174 (5th Cir. 1975); Ruis-Rubio v. INS, 380 F.2d 29 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 944 (1967); Matter of Logan, 17 I. & N. Dec. 367 (BIA 1980); Matter of Rodriguez, 14 I. & N. Dec. 706 (BIA 1974); Matter of Fortis, 14 I. & N. Dec. 576 (BIA 1974); Matter of W, 5 I. & N. Dec. 759 (BIA 1954)(plea of nolo contendere is an admission of guilt and in effect a plea of guilty to establish a conviction).

[29] North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 31 (1971).

[30] See, e.g., Burrell v. United States, 384 F.3d 22 (2d Cir. 2004) (criminal judgment based on an Alford plea constitutes a conviction); Abimbola v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 173, 181 (2d Cir. 2004) (Alford plea held equivalent to plea of guilty for purposes of creating a conviction for immigration purposes).

[31] A verdict of “guilty but mentally ill” has been held to constitute a “conviction” for purposes of defining grounds of removal.  Salim v. Reno, No. Civ. A. 2000-CV-4603 (E.D.Pa. 2001) (unpublished).