Home › Removal defense › Criminal records and immigration consequences

How a criminal record affects your immigration caseImmigration Consequences of Criminal Arrests and Convictions

Wang Law Firm, LLC · David Wang, Managing Attorney · Attorney-reviewed · Updated October 2026

Read this first: (1) If you are not a U.S. citizen (including if you are a green card holder) and are facing criminal charges, before you plead guilty or accept any plea agreement, have an immigration attorney evaluate the immigration consequences, and tell your criminal defense attorney your immigration status. (2) Arrangements in criminal court such as a "light sentence," "probation" or "no record" may still count as a conviction under immigration law. (3) Even an arrest without a conviction can affect detention, visas, green cards and naturalization, and can even trigger mandatory detention. (4) Keep a certified disposition from the court for every case, and get an evaluation before traveling abroad or filing an immigration or naturalization application.

U.S. immigration law and criminal law are two separate systems. The criminal court decides the punishment; immigration law decides whether the record will cause a person to be removed, be unable to enter or adjust status, lose eligibility for relief, fail the good moral character requirement for naturalization, or be subject to mandatory detention in immigration proceedings. The same offense may be only a misdemeanor under criminal law but have serious consequences under immigration law; conversely, an offense that sounds serious may, because of how the statute is structured, not fall into a particular immigration category.

This page explains the main crime categories and methods of analysis, to help you understand why every plea option needs an immigration evaluation first. Our firm focuses on immigration legal services and does not provide criminal defense; our role is to work with your criminal defense attorney to evaluate the immigration consequences of the various plea options.

Two sets of rules: "deportability" and "inadmissibility"

Deportability (INA 237(a)(2)): Applies to people who have been lawfully "admitted," such as green card holders and people who entered on a valid visa. DHS must prove that the person is removable.
Inadmissibility (INA 212(a)(2)): Applies to people seeking admission, applying for a visa or applying to adjust status (applying for a green card), and also to people who entered without being admitted. Some categories do not require a conviction; admitting the facts that make up the essential elements of a crime, or there being "reason to believe" the person is involved in drug trafficking, is enough.

The two sets of rules do not cover the same ground. For example, domestic violence crimes and firearms offenses are grounds of deportability but are not, in themselves, grounds of inadmissibility; while "admitting" a drug violation can make a person inadmissible but does not necessarily make them deportable. A green card holder returning to the United States from abroad with certain criminal records may also be treated as an "applicant for admission" and subject to the inadmissibility rules (INA 101(a)(13)(C)).

The main crime categories at a glance

Category	Deportability (INA 237)	Inadmissibility (INA 212)	Main impact
Aggravated felony	237(a)(2)(A)(iii): convicted at any time after admission	No category by that name, but the conduct often falls into other categories	Bars nearly all major forms of relief; reentry after removal is strictly restricted
Crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT)	237(a)(2)(A)(i), (ii)	212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I)	Exceptions such as the "petty offense exception" apply and must be calculated item by item
Controlled substances	237(a)(2)(B)	212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II), 212(a)(2)(C)	Waivers are available only in very narrow situations
Domestic violence, stalking, child abuse, violation of a protective order	237(a)(2)(E)	Not in itself a ground of inadmissibility	A protective order violation can be based on a finding by a civil or criminal court
Firearms offenses	237(a)(2)(C)	Not in itself a ground of inadmissibility	Often overlaps with other categories
Multiple convictions with aggregate sentences of 5 years or more	—	212(a)(2)(B)	Regardless of the offense

Aggravated felonies (INA 101(a)(43))

"Aggravated felony" is a concept defined by immigration law itself; it is not the same as a felony under state law, and some state-law misdemeanors can also qualify. INA 101(a)(43) lists more than twenty subcategories; common ones include:

Murder, rape, sexual abuse of a minor;
Illicit trafficking in a controlled substance (including certain drug offenses);
Illicit trafficking in firearms or explosives;
Money laundering of more than $10,000;
A "crime of violence" with a sentence of at least 1 year of imprisonment;
Theft (including receipt of stolen property) or burglary with a sentence of at least 1 year of imprisonment;
Fraud or deceit causing a loss to the victim of more than $10,000, and tax evasion causing a loss to the government of more than $10,000;
Obstruction of justice, perjury and similar offenses with a sentence of at least 1 year of imprisonment.

Note that "a sentence of at least 1 year" refers to the sentence imposed, including any suspended portion (INA 101(a)(48)(B)), not the time actually served. A theft offense with a 1-year sentence that is entirely suspended may still be an aggravated felony under immigration law.

The consequences of an aggravated felony are very serious: a green card holder can be removed; major forms of relief such as cancellation of removal, asylum and voluntary departure are unavailable; a person who never obtained a green card in the United States may be subject to administrative removal proceedings that do not go through immigration court (INA 238(b)); reentry after removal is strictly restricted; and an aggravated felony conviction after November 29, 1990 permanently prevents a person from establishing the good moral character required for naturalization (INA 101(f)(8)).

Crimes involving moral turpitude (CIMT)

"Crime involving moral turpitude" (CIMT) has no statutory list; it has been developed through case law. It generally refers to conduct that is inherently base or vile and contrary to accepted moral standards, and that involves some culpable mental state (such as intent, knowledge or, in some cases, recklessness). Common examples include offenses with fraud as an element, theft with intent to permanently deprive, and certain assault offenses; simple reckless driving and ordinary driving without a license usually do not qualify.

Deportability (INA 237(a)(2)(A)):

One CIMT committed within 5 years after admission, for which a sentence of 1 year or longer may be imposed (based on the statutory maximum, not the actual sentence);
At any time after admission, convictions for two or more CIMTs not arising out of a single scheme of criminal misconduct.

Inadmissibility (INA 212(a)(2)(A)): A conviction for, or admission of, one CIMT is enough. But there are two exceptions:

Petty offense exception: Only one CIMT was committed, the statutory maximum for that offense does not exceed 1 year, and the sentence of imprisonment actually imposed did not exceed 6 months;
Juvenile exception: Only one crime was committed, the person was under 18 at the time, and the crime (and any release from confinement for it) occurred more than 5 years before the application for a visa or admission.

Controlled substances

Deportability (237(a)(2)(B)): Anyone convicted after admission of violating any law or regulation relating to a controlled substance as defined by federal law is deportable; the only statutory exception is a single offense of possession for one's own use of 30 grams or less of marijuana. A person found to be a drug abuser or addict is also deportable.
Inadmissibility (212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II), 212(a)(2)(C)): A conviction for, or admission of, a controlled substance violation is enough to make a person inadmissible; if there is "reason to believe" the person is involved in trafficking, they are inadmissible even without a conviction. A waiver (INA 212(h)) is available only for a single offense of possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana.
State legalization is not federal legalization: Illinois and other states allow adult use of marijuana, but marijuana remains a controlled substance under federal law. Admitting use to an immigration officer, or working in the marijuana industry, can create immigration problems.
Whether it is a "federally controlled substance": State drug schedules can be broader than federal ones. In Mellouli v. Lynch (2015), the Supreme Court held that the government must connect the conviction to a federally controlled substance. This kind of comparison is exactly where the "categorical approach" discussed below comes in.

Domestic violence, stalking, child abuse and violation of protective orders

INA 237(a)(2)(E) provides that a person convicted after admission of a crime of domestic violence, a crime of stalking, or a crime of child abuse, child neglect or child abandonment is deportable. A "crime of domestic violence" must be a "crime of violence" against a person in a specified domestic relationship. In addition, a person whom a court (including a civil court) finds to have violated the portion of a protective order that prohibits credible threats of violence, repeated harassment or bodily injury is also deportable, and a criminal conviction is not necessarily required.

Firearms offenses

INA 237(a)(2)(C) provides that a person convicted after admission of unlawfully purchasing, selling, possessing or carrying a firearm or certain destructive devices, among other violations, is deportable.

Other situations to watch for

Asylum and withholding of removal: A conviction for a "particularly serious crime" bars asylum and withholding of removal. The BIA issued several precedents in 2025–2026 that generally take a strict approach to particularly serious crimes, for example holding that there is no rule "presuming that a single misdemeanor is not a particularly serious crime," and finding certain drug distribution and health care fraud convictions to be particularly serious crimes.
Naturalization: INA 101(f) lists the situations in which good moral character cannot be found; even outside those statutory situations, a criminal record is weighed as a whole in naturalization review. See our naturalization (N-400) guide.
Visa applications: Both nonimmigrant and immigrant visa applications ask about arrests and convictions, and you must answer truthfully.

"Conviction" under immigration law: INA 101(a)(48)(A)

A "conviction" under immigration law has its own definition and does not simply follow state law:

A formal judgment of guilt entered by a court; or
Even if the court withheld adjudication of guilt (adjudication withheld), it is a conviction as long as both of the following are met: (i) a judge or jury found the person guilty, or the person entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere (no contest), or admitted sufficient facts to warrant a finding of guilt; and (ii) the judge ordered some form of punishment, penalty or restraint on liberty (such as a fine, community service, probation or classes).

This means that many deferred judgments and post-plea diversion programs that "don't count as a conviction" or are "dismissed upon completion" under state law may still be convictions under immigration law, as long as they include a guilty plea or admission of facts plus some form of penalty. Conversely, pretrial diversion that does not require a guilty plea or an admission of facts may not be a conviction. Whether a particular program in your state counts as a conviction depends on the program's specific requirements and the court record; do not rely simply on being told it will leave "no record."

In addition, the "sentence imposed" includes any suspended portion (INA 101(a)(48)(B)). A juvenile delinquency adjudication by a juvenile court is generally not considered a conviction under immigration law (Matter of Devison, 22 I&N Dec. 1362 (BIA 2000)); the exception is a minor convicted in adult court.

The categorical approach

To decide whether a state conviction falls into a particular immigration category (such as an aggravated felony, a CIMT or a controlled substance offense), courts and immigration judges generally do not look at what the person "actually did"; instead they use the categorical approach: comparing the elements of the criminal statute with the generic definition of the immigration category. In brief:

Look at the least culpable conduct: Assume the person committed only the least serious conduct the statute can cover. Would that conduct still fall into the immigration category? If the statute covers more than the immigration category, as a rule it is not a match (Moncrieffe v. Holder, 2013).
Divisible statutes and the modified categorical approach: If a statute lists multiple alternative "elements" (in effect, multiple offenses), it is a "divisible" statute, and a limited set of conviction records (the charging document, plea agreement, plea colloquy transcript and judgment) can be consulted to determine which offense the person was convicted of. In Mathis v. United States (2016), the Supreme Court distinguished between "elements" and a list of mere "means" of committing the offense: the latter cannot be used to consult the conviction records.
The circumstance-specific approach: For numerical conditions in certain immigration categories (such as a fraud loss exceeding $10,000), the facts of the specific case are examined (Nijhawan v. Holder, 2009).

This is exactly where there is room to design a plea: within what the criminal attorney can negotiate, the choice of a statute, a particular subsection of a divisible statute, a sentence length, or how the facts are described in the conviction record may determine whether there are immigration consequences at all. This analysis is highly technical, and the case law differs among the federal circuits, so it must be worked through item by item by an immigration attorney.

Key decisions

Padilla v. Kentucky (2010): criminal defense attorneys must advise on immigration consequences

In Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010), the Supreme Court held that the effective assistance of counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment requires criminal defense attorneys to advise noncitizen clients of the deportation risk of a guilty plea: when the immigration consequences are clear, correct advice must be given; when they are unclear, the attorney must at least advise that the charges may carry adverse immigration consequences. Later, in Chaidez v. United States (2013), the Court held that the Padilla rule does not apply retroactively to convictions that became final before that decision (March 31, 2010).

What this means for you in practice: be sure to tell your criminal attorney your immigration status (including your visa category, green card and any pending applications), so that both your criminal attorney and your immigration attorney can evaluate the case before you plead. If your attorney at the time did not advise you, Padilla may be one basis for vacating the conviction, but whether that succeeds depends on state-law procedures and deadlines.

Pereida v. Wilkinson (2021): the burden of proof when applying for relief

In Pereida v. Wilkinson, 592 U.S. 224 (2021), the Supreme Court held 5–3 that a person applying for relief such as cancellation of removal must prove that they do not have a disqualifying conviction; if the conviction record is ambiguous and it cannot be determined which subsection of the statute the person was convicted under, the applicant bears the adverse consequence. This differs from the situation where DHS must prove removability and the burden is on the government. As a result, whether the court record is clear at the time of the plea may directly affect whether you can apply for relief years later.

The Laken Riley Act: mandatory detention even on a mere charge

The Laken Riley Act (Pub. L. 119-1), signed on January 29, 2025, added subparagraph (E) to INA 236(c)(1), providing that the following people must be detained during immigration proceedings:

People inadmissible under INA 212(a)(6)(A) (present without admission or parole), 212(a)(6)(C) (fraud or misrepresentation) or 212(a)(7) (lacking valid entry documents); and
Who are charged with, are arrested for, are convicted of, or admit having committed acts that constitute the essential elements of, burglary, theft, larceny, shoplifting or assault of a law enforcement officer, or any crime that results in death or serious bodily injury to another person.

This provision does not require a conviction; an arrest or a charge alone may trigger it, and immigration judges generally have no authority to grant bond to people subject to mandatory detention. Whether it applies to a specific person (for example, green card holders who were lawfully admitted generally do not fall into the inadmissibility categories above), and the practice of mandatory detention based on an arrest or charge alone, are disputed in practice and are still developing as of October 2026, so check the latest rules and case law. For people with no record of lawful admission to the United States, even a single shoplifting arrest can have serious consequences, so be sure to seek advice early. For the general rules on detention and bond, see Detention and bond.

Post-conviction relief: the immigration effect of vacating a conviction

Not every "vacatur" or "clearing of the record" removes the immigration consequences. Precedents of the BIA and the Attorney General have established the following rules:

Matter of Pickering, 23 I&N Dec. 621 (BIA 2003): A vacated conviction loses its effect for immigration purposes only if it was vacated because of a procedural or substantive defect in the underlying criminal proceedings (for example, a constitutional violation, or a plea rendered invalid because the attorney failed to advise of the immigration consequences as required by Padilla); if it was vacated solely to avoid immigration consequences or on rehabilitative grounds, the conviction still stands for immigration purposes.
Matter of Thomas & Thompson, 27 I&N Dec. 674 (A.G. 2019): The Attorney General applied the same standard to sentence modifications. For example, changing 365 days to 364 days is recognized only if the modification was based on a procedural or substantive defect in the underlying proceedings; a modification made to avoid immigration consequences is not recognized.
Rehabilitative relief under state law, such as expungement and record sealing, generally does not eliminate a conviction for immigration purposes.
In Matter of Boye, 29 I&N Dec. 826 (BIA 2026), the BIA held that an order entered by a different judge after immigration proceedings began, purporting to "clarify" the original sentence, has no effect for immigration purposes.

In Illinois, the law requires the court, before accepting a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, to admonish the defendant in open court that if they are not a U.S. citizen, the conviction may result in deportation, exclusion from admission or denial of naturalization (725 ILCS 5/113-8). State law also provides several post-conviction relief procedures, but each has strict eligibility requirements and deadlines and is subject to limits such as whether the person is still serving the sentence. Whether a particular conviction can be vacated, and on what grounds, must be evaluated by a criminal attorney under state law; whether those grounds will be recognized under immigration law must be evaluated by an immigration attorney, and the two must work together.

Working with your criminal defense attorney

Immigration consequences are best addressed before a plea; there is much less room to fix things afterward. Our approach is to communicate and coordinate with your criminal defense attorney:

Understand your full immigration situation: manner of entry, current status, pending applications, past arrests and convictions (including foreign records), and future plans (such as applying for a green card, naturalizing or traveling abroad).
Analyze the charges and possible plea options: determine, item by item, which immigration category each possible offense, subsection and sentence would fall into and which forms of relief it would affect.
Provide a written opinion to the criminal attorney: for example, which options carry lower immigration risk, which facts should be kept out of the conviction record, and whether the sentence needs to stay below a certain threshold. The final plea decision is made by you and your criminal attorney.
Plan next steps: whether a waiver will be needed after conviction (such as I-601), whether you can apply for cancellation of removal (EOIR-42A, EOIR-42B), and the timing of travel abroad and naturalization.

Our firm does not provide criminal defense services and does not appear in criminal court.

Common misconceptions

"It's only a misdemeanor, so it doesn't matter": Immigration law looks at the elements of the offense, the statutory maximum and the sentence imposed; a state-law misdemeanor can also be an aggravated felony or a CIMT.
"Probation or deferred adjudication isn't a conviction": As long as there is a guilty plea or admission of facts plus any form of penalty, it may be a conviction under immigration law.
"The case was dismissed, so I'm fine": Having no conviction is usually much better, but the arrest must still be disclosed truthfully on most immigration applications, can affect discretion and bond, and under the Laken Riley Act can even trigger mandatory detention.
"I'll just get the record expunged later": Expungement generally does not eliminate immigration consequences; vacating a conviction must be based on a defect in the underlying proceedings.
"I have a green card, so I'm safe": Green card holders can also be removed because of a conviction, and the risk is especially high when leaving and reentering the country.
"If I don't mention it on the application, no one will know": Immigration applications are checked against fingerprint and law enforcement databases, and concealing a record may constitute misrepresentation, which often has more serious consequences than the record itself.

How we can help

Review all of your arrest and conviction records (certified court dispositions, charging documents, judgments, plea transcripts) and determine the immigration consequences of each;
Work with your criminal defense attorney to evaluate the immigration consequences of the various plea options and provide a written opinion;
Where there is already a conviction, evaluate the feasibility of relief such as waivers and cancellation of removal, and whether vacating the conviction would be recognized under immigration law;
Represent clients charged as removable because of criminal records in immigration court, including on detention and bond issues;
Evaluate the timing and risks of travel abroad and of applications such as adjustment of status and naturalization.

We do not promise any outcome. The immigration consequences of a criminal record depend heavily on the specific statute, the court record and the case law of the relevant federal circuit.

Frequently asked questions

I have a green card and a few years ago I received probation for a shoplifting offense. Will I be removed?

It depends on several factors: the elements of the offense under your state's statute (whether it is a CIMT), the statutory maximum, the sentence imposed (including whether a term of imprisonment was imposed as part of the probation), how many years after admission it occurred, and whether you have other convictions. A theft offense with a sentence of 1 year or more may also be an aggravated felony. The court records must be analyzed item by item, and it is especially important to get an evaluation before traveling abroad or applying for naturalization.

Will a DUI affect my immigration case?

A simple single DUI is generally not an aggravated felony or a CIMT, but it depends on the state statute and the circumstances (for example, knowingly driving with a revoked license, or causing injury). A DUI record may be given significant weight in bond decisions, discretionary relief, visa interviews and the good moral character review for naturalization, and multiple DUIs have a greater impact.

My case was dismissed. Do I still have to disclose it when applying for a green card?

Yes. The vast majority of immigration applications ask whether you have "ever been arrested or charged," not just convicted. Disclose it truthfully and attach the court's disposition showing that the case was dismissed. Concealing it is riskier than the record itself.

My criminal attorney says that after I plead, the case will be "dismissed once I finish a class." Should I accept?

Have an immigration attorney look at the specific terms first. If the program requires you to plead guilty or admit facts first, and then adds requirements such as classes or fines, it may already be a conviction under immigration law even if the case is dismissed after completion. Whether there is an alternative that does not require a plea is worth discussing with your criminal attorney.

No one told me about the immigration consequences when I pleaded guilty. Can I vacate the conviction now?

Possibly, but it must be done through the post-conviction procedures provided by state law, each of which has strict requirements and deadlines that a criminal attorney must evaluate. If the vacatur is based on a defect in the underlying proceedings, such as the attorney's failure to advise of immigration consequences as required by Padilla, it will generally be recognized under immigration law; if it is vacated only to avoid immigration consequences, it will not be recognized.

What happens if a person without status is merely arrested?

They may be transferred to ICE and placed in removal proceedings. If the offense is one listed in the Laken Riley Act (such as theft, shoplifting, burglary or assault of a police officer), they may be subject to mandatory detention even without a conviction, and the immigration judge generally cannot grant bond. Contact both a criminal attorney and an immigration attorney as soon as possible.