(E)  Effective Date.  The “admission” language was not added to the controlled substances grounds of inadmissibility until November 29, 1990.[117]  Therefore, the Second Circuit has held that where a noncitizen was admitted prior to that date, he could not be found deportable as being inadmissible at time of admission to the United States on the basis of having made an admission to the immigration authorities taken at a point after that date.[118]  The CMT admission language predates even the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.[119]

 

[117] Immigration Act of 1990, Pub.L. No. 101-649, § 5089, 104 Stat. 4978, 5051 (Nov. 29, 1990).

[118] Francis v. Gonzales, 442 F.3d 131 (2d Cir. Mar. 27, 2006).

[119] See Matter of RR, 6 I. & N. Dec. 55 (BIA 1953, BIA 1954, AG 1955) (INA

§ 212(a)(9), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9), which excludes “aliens who admit committing acts which constitute the essential elements of such a crime [involving moral turpitude],” is applicable to offenses committed prior to as well as those committed after the effective date of the Immigration and Nationality Act). Before 1952, an admission of commission of a CMT could be used as a ground of inadmissibility only if the noncitizen admitted the legal conclusion that s/he had committed the specific crime, after its elements had been explained to him or her.  The 1952 Act created a ground of inadmissibility when a noncitizen admits committing acts which constitute the essential elements of a crime involving moral turpitude.  To lessen the harshness of this provision, Congress amended the statute to establish strict requirements governing under what circumstances a noncitizen will be considered to have admitted committing a CMT or acts constituting the essential elements of a CMT.

BIA

CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES -- INADMISSIBILITY -- ADMISSION IN LIEU OF CONVICTION
In the absence of a conviction, a finding of guilt cannot be based on inferences of facts that the noncitizen has failed or refused to admit. Matter of GM, 7 I. & N. Dec. 40 (Att'y Gen. 1956); Matter of EN, 7 I. & N. Dec. 153 (BIA 1956).

INADMISSIBILITY - ADMISSION OF FACTS - FINDING OF GUILT CANNOT BE BASED ON INFERENCES FROM FACTS RESPONDENT REFUSES TO ADMIT
In the absence of a conviction, a finding of guilt cannot be based on inferences of facts that the noncitizen has failed or refused to admit. Matter of GM, 7 I. & N. Dec. 40 (Att'y Gen. 1956); Matter of EN, 7 I. & N. Dec. 153 (BIA 1956).

Sixth Circuit

ALFORD PLEA
United States v. Tunning, 69 F.3d 107 (6th Cir. 1995) (''Alford'' plea refers to defendant who pleads guilty but maintains that he is innocent).

Ninth Circuit

POST CON RELIEF - STATE REHABILITATIVE RELIEF - IMMIGRATION EFFECTS - NINTH CIRCUIT - ADMISSION OF DRUG OFFENSE
Romero v. Holder, 568 F.3d 1054, 1062 (9th Cir. 2009) ("the facts underlying a conviction that would have been eligible for relief under the FFOA, but was expunged under a state rehabilitative statute, cannot serve as an admission of a drug offense, statutorily barring a finding of good moral character under 8 U.S.C. 1101(f)(3).").

POST CON RELIEF - STATE REHABILITATIVE RELIEF - IMMIGRATION EFFECTS - NINTH CIRCUIT - ADMISSION OF DRUG OFFENSE
Romero v. Holder, 568 F.3d 1054, 1062 (9th Cir. 2009) ("the facts underlying a conviction that would have been eligible for relief under the FFOA, but was expunged under a state rehabilitative statute, cannot serve as an admission of a drug offense, statutorily barring a finding of good moral character under 8 U.S.C. 1101(f)(3).").

INADMISSIBILITY - ADMISSIONS OF CONDUCT
Garcia-Lopez v. Ashcroft, 334 F.3d 840 n.4 (9th Cir. June 26, 2003) (respondent's representative cannot in proceedings concede a conviction that is not a conviction: "The INS also contends that Garcia-Lopez "admitted" that he was convicted of a felony because, in support of the initial application, Garcia-Lopez's accredited representative stated that Garcia-Lopez had received a felony sentence. As an initial matter, the representative's statement was patently inaccurate, as Garcia-Lopez was never actually sentenced. More importantly, Garcia-Lopez's belief about the nature of his offense is irrelevant to the purely legal question of how the offense was categorized or what the maximum penalty was. Similarly, the statement of Garcia-Lopez's representative as to a matter of law has no legal effect. See Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I & N Dec. 503 (BIA 1980). The INS's contention that Garcia-Lopez is bound by this statement must fail.").

Other

CRIMES OF MORAL TURPITUDE - ADMISSIONS
22 C.F.R. 40.21(a)(1) ("A Consular Officer may make a finding of ineligibility under INA 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) based upon an alien's admission of the commission of acts which constitute the essential elements of a crime involving moral turpitude, only if the acts constitute a crime under the criminal law of the jurisdiction where they occurred. However, a Consular Officer must base a determination that a crime involves moral turpitude upon the moral standards generally prevailing in the United States.").