Crimes of Moral Turpitude

Generally speaking, a court order vacating a conviction on a ground of legal invalidity that existed at the time the conviction originally came into existence is effective to eliminate the conviction for immigration purposes. See § 10.4, infra.  The 1996 statutory definition of conviction did not alter this result, see § 10.5, infra, and the BIA decision in Matter of Pickering likewise did not alter this result.  See § 10.6, infra.  The Full Faith and Credit doctrine precludes immigration courts from looking behind the face of a court order vacating a conviction.  See § 10.7, infra.  Even convictions vacated on grounds of legal invalidity based on the lack of, or inaccurate, immigration advice at plea are eliminated for immigration purposes.  See § 10.8, infra.  It is possible, however, for the immigration authorities to argue that a conviction vacated by a court which lacked jurisdiction to enter the vacatur continues to exist for immigration purposes.  See § 10.9, infra.  A great many grounds of legal invalidity may be used to vacate convictions for immigration purposes.  See § 10.10, infra.  Removal proceedings based on a conviction must be terminated immediately once it is vacated as legally invalid, even if the original criminal charges are still pending.[1]  See § § 10.30-10.32, infra.

[12] Matter of Arce-Espinosa, A92 211 181 (BIA June 30, 1998) (granting interlocutory appeal terminating deportation proceedings, despite pendency of criminal charges, where conviction had been vacated).