Even where there is no conviction, a noncitizen can be found inadmissible on the basis of a crime of moral turpitude if s/he “admits having committed, or who admits committing acts which constitute the essential elements of” a crime of moral turpitude.[27]  However, there are very strict rules concerning what constitutes an “admission.”  There are also other limits on when an admission may be used to trigger inadmissibility, especially where the offense resulted in an official criminal disposition.

 

[27] INA § 212(a)(2)(A)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i).  For an excellent discussion of these requirements, see Matter of J, 2 I. & N. Dec. 285 (BIA 1945).  See also Legal Opinion § 95-4, Excludability under “Zero Tolerance Program’’ of U.S. Customs Service, No. HQ 235-P (Jan. 20, 1995) (“admission” rules apply to both moral turpitude and controlled substances offenses).

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).").