(A)  In General.  Many of the worst crime-related immigration consequences flow from criminal convictions.  The best news for juvenile defenders is that an adjudication of a criminal offense in juvenile court does not constitute a criminal “conviction” for immigration purposes, and will therefore not trigger any adverse immigration consequences that flow from a “conviction.”[184]

 

                The government raised the argument that the new 1996 statutory definition of “conviction”[185] changed this rule, claiming that juvenile adjudications now constitute convictions for immigration purposes.  The BIA rejected this argument, and reaffirmed its longstanding rule “that juvenile delinquency proceedings are not criminal proceedings, that acts of juvenile delinquency are not crimes, and that findings of juvenile delinquency are not convictions for immigration purposes.”[186]  If the offense is one for which transfer to adult court is discretionary under the Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act, the proceedings do not result in a conviction unless the state in fact transferred the juvenile to adult court.[187]

 

                In Devison, the Board found that the New York youthful offender adjudication procedures set forth in Article 720 of the New York Criminal Procedure Law are similar in nature and purpose to the FJDA, and therefore do not result in a “conviction” for immigration purposes.[188]  In addition, the BIA held that the resentencing of a youthful offender following a violation of probation did not convert the youthful offender adjudication into a judgment of conviction.

 

                Example: Jaime is found guilty of robbery in juvenile court.  This does not constitute a conviction, and Jaime faces no immigration penalties as a result of the disposition itself.

[184] Matter of Ramirez-Rivero, 18 I. & N. Dec. 135 (BIA 1981); Matter of CM, 5 I. & N. Dec. 327 (BIA 1953) (juvenile finding of commission of crime involving moral turpitude does not constitute a “conviction” or trigger inadmissibility).

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

[186] Matter of Devison, 22 I. & N. Dec. 1362, 1364 (BIA 2000) (en banc); Matter of De La Nues, 18 I. & N. Dec. 140 (1981); Matter of Ramirez-Rivero, 18 I. & N. Dec. 135 (1981).

[187] Matter of Devison, supra; Matter of CM, 5 I. & N. Dec. 327 (BIA 1953) (juvenile finding of commission of crime involving moral turpitude does not constitute a “conviction” or trigger inadmissibility).

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

Ninth Circuit

JUVENILE - ADJUDICATION REVERSED FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER FJDA TO IMMEDIATE NOTIFICATION AND PROMPT ARRAIGNMENT, AND TO THE RIGHT TO ADVISE FROM RESPONSIBLE ADULT PRIOR TO INTERROGATION REQUIRING SUPPRESSION OF C
United States v. C.M., 485 F.3d 492 (9th Cir. May 8, 2007) (adjudication of delinquency of a juvenile Mexican national for transporting illegal aliens and related counts is reversed, and the juvenile information dismissed, where the juvenile was deprived of his rights under the Juvenile Delinquency Act to immediate notification and prompt arraignment, and to the advice and counsel of a responsible adult prior to interrogation; and a resulting confession was highly prejudicial and should not have been used against him to initiate his proceedings).