Criminal Defense of Immigrants


§ 7.26 (C)

Skip to § 7.

For more text, click "Next Page>"

(C)  Convictions of Local Courts.  The most common different types of legislative enactments in the United States are usually referred to as federal, state, and local laws.  Some of the grounds of removal specifically refer to state and local laws.  For example, the domestic violence deportation ground, [140] the unlawful voting deportation ground, [141] and the unlawful voting ground of inadmissibility[142] specifically refer to local law as well as the law of other jurisdictions.  In new legislation, as well, Congress specifically listed offenses under local law.[143] Congress, however, therefore chose not to include violations of local laws as a basis for removal under any other grounds, such as aggravated felony convictions or controlled substances convictions.

[140] INA§ 237(a)(2)(E)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i).

[141] INA § 237(a)(6)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(6)(A).

[142] INA § 212(a)(2)(D)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(D)(i).

[143] The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, H.R. 4472, Pub. L. 109-248, § 111(6) (July 27, 2006) (emphasis supplied).




Matter of Cuellar-Gomez, 25 I&N Dec. 850, 855 (BIA Jul. 18, 2012) (Kansas conviction of possession of marijuana, in violation of a Wichita municipal ordinance, constituted a conviction for immigration proceedings because the Wichita proceedings required proof beyond a reasonable doubt, even though there was no right to counsel or jury trial), distinguishing Matter of Eslamizar, 23 I. & N. Dec. 684 (BIA Oct. 19, 2004).
Matter of Cuellar-Gomez, 25 I&N Dec. 850, 858-859 (BIA Jul. 18, 2012) (Kansas conviction of possession of marijuana, in violation of a Wichita municipal ordinance, constituted a conviction for a violation of a law or regulation of a State as required to trigger the controlled substances conviction ground of deportation, under INA 237(a)(2)(B)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(B)(i); Congress meant to include them within the meaning of laws or regulation of a State because all municipalities derive their legal authority from the state in which they are located so it meant to encompass the laws of any political subdivision of a State, despite Congress failure explicitly to include municipal or local in this definition as it did in other parts of the statute).

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Reveles, 660 F.3d 1138, No. 10-30313 (9th Cir. Oct. 24, 2011) (the non-judicial punishment (NJP) administered by the Navy for drunk driving was not criminal in nature and therefore the Government did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by prosecuting and convicting the defendant for the crime a second time"this time in the U.S. district court"after he had received NJP for the same offense.) NOTE: Applying this to the immigration context, the argument would be that, if even an offense that carries 30 days in custody is not considered to be criminal, offenses that may not meet each of the Matter of Eslamizar requirements might nevertheless fail to constitute a conviction of a crime for immigration purposes as well, as long as it appears they also do not follow a criminal procedure. See Matter of Eslamizar, 23 I. & N. Dec. 684, 687 (BIA 2004) (finding that an Oregon violation was not a conviction, because it carried: (1) no possible jail sentence; (2) no right to appointed counsel; (3) no right to jury trial; and (4) and no right to proof beyond a reasonable doubt).


There is a decent argument that because some deportability and inadmissibility grounds specify jurisdictions, e.g., "state and federal and foreign" (controlled substance and aggravated felony grounds) or "state, federal, local and Indian" (domestic violence ground), that since "local" is included in at least one ground and not included in others, local ordinances would only give rise to deportability if the ground specifically says "local." See N. Tooby & J. Rollin, Criminal Defense of Immigrants 7.26 (2012). There is a good Ninth Circuit case (involving environmental rules, not immigration (Longview Fibre Co. v. Rasmussen, 980 F.2d 1307 (9th Cir. 1992)) that states that by listing things that are within the purview of the statute in one place, and other things within a separate statute, but not the first, Congress meant to exclude them in the former and include them in the latter. That Congress included state, federal, foreign, local and Indian convictions in the domestic violence ground, but only state, federal and foreign convictions in the controlled substance and aggravated felony grounds, means that Congress intended to exclude laws of local and Indian jurisdictions from the controlled substances and aggravated felony grounds of deportability. The BIA has rejected this argument in the controlled substances and aggravated felony contexts. See Matter of Cuellar, 25 I. & N. Dec. 850 (BIA 2012). The Ninth Circuit, however, may disagree. Immigration counsel wishing to raise the issue in a petition for review should preserve it by raising it before the Immigration Judge. The respondent, however, would face mandatory detention until the Ninth Circuit agreed with this argument. Thanks to Dan Kesselbrenner