Immigration counsel can argue that a person convicted of aiding and abetting the commission of a deportable offense is not deportable unless the definition of aiding and abetting, under the law of the jurisdiction of conviction, is coextensive with the federal definition of aiding and abetting. For example, in California, a person can be convicted of aiding and abetting on the basis of mere encouragement, even if no actual assistance is provided. This form of aiding a theft offense has been held insufficient to constitute a theft offense aggravated felony. United States v.

Drax v. Reno, 338 F.3d 98 (2d Cir. 2003) (relying on the expressly retroactive language in the Technical Corrections of 1994, Second Circuit found the amendments to the firearm ground of deportation adding attempt and conspiracy were expressly retroactive and applied to convictions occurring prior to the amendment).

United States v. Perez-Lopez ___ F.3d ____ (9th Cir. November 7, 2003) (Spanish-language Miranda card informing defendant that "En caso de que no tenga dinero, Ud. tiene el derecho de solicitar de la corte un abogado," which testifying officer translated in court as saying, "In case you don' t have enough money or funds, you have the right to solicit the Court for an attorney," was inadequate, in that it did not inform the defendant that he had a right to an attorney, not just that he could ask the court for one)

United States v. Ceja-Prado, 333 F.3d 1046 (9th Cir. June 25, 2003) (where proof of defendant's age is lacking, and s/he may have been a juvenile at the time the crime was committed, there may be no federal
jurisdiction over defendant's case pursuant to the Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act, 18 U.S.C. § 5031).

Thanks to Katherine Anne Brady for this section.      Some people who were born outside the United States inherited U.S. citizenship from their U.S. citizen parents without knowing it. If at the time of the person’s birth his parent or even grandparent was a U.S. citizen, the person should obtain immigration counsel to analyze the laws governing acquisition of citizenship. (Charts outlining elegibility for derivation and acquisition of U.S. Citizenship can be found in Ira J. Kurzban, Kurzban's Immigration Law Sourcebook Appendix B (8th Ed.

Lin v. Ashcroft, __ F.3d __ (9th Cir. Jan. 26, 2004) (when respondent is a minor, immigration judge must refuse to allow hearing to continue if counsel is obviously unprepared to go forward).
http://www.ilw.com/lawyers/immigdaily/cases/2004,0212-Lin.pdf

Rights of Juveniles in Removal Proceedings.      Perez-Funez v. INS, 619 F. Supp. 656, 662 (C.D. Cal. 1985), lays out the special procedural rights possessed by juvenile respondents in immigration proceedings. Considering whether the INS was using coercion to make unaccompanied minors to accept voluntary departure, and thereby waive their right to seek relief before an immigration judge, the court observed: "[U]naccompanied children of tender years encounter a stressful situation in which they are forced to make critical decisions.

An adjudication of juvenile delinquency under the federal Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, Pub. L. No. 93-415, 101-102, 88 Stat. 1109 (1974) is not a conviction of a crime, but instead a determination of the status of the offender. A person who is a "juvenile delinquent" under the Act has therefore not been convicted of a crime. United States v. Brian N., 900 F.2d 218 (10th Cir. 1990); United States v. Frasquillo-Zomosa, 626 F.2d 99, 101 (9th Cir. 1980); United States v. Hill, 538 F.2d 1072, 1075 (4th Cir. 1976); United States v. King, 482 F.2d 454, 456 (6th Cir.

An adjudication of delinquency is not a conviction for immigration purposes. Matter of Devison, 22 I. & N. Dec. 1362 (BIA 2000). However, a noncitizen can be inadmissible from the United States if s/he admits the essential elements of a crime involving moral turpitude or a controlled substance offense. In order for a noncitizens statements to constitute a valid admission: (1) the conduct must be for something that is a crime, (2) the government must provide a plain language description of the crime, and (3) the admission must be voluntary.

     Under 18 U.S.C. 5032, a plea by a juvenile to an adult offense that does not warrant transfer from juvenile proceedings to adult court in the first instance is not a conviction for immigration purposes. Equal protection dictates that the same type of disposition in state court should also not be a conviction for immigration purposes, since to do otherwise would treat a noncitizen differently for deportability purposes merely because s/he was prosecuted in state court, rather than in federal court. See, e.g., Lujan-Armendariz v. INS, 222 F.3d 728 (9th Cir.