A
In such a vulnerable state of my pregnancy they were able to keep my husband by my side. Forever grateful…
Verified Google ReviewBoard-certified Florida immigration attorney analyzing criminal charges for immigration consequences, advising criminal defense counsel on plea immigration impact, and defending noncitizens facing removal based on criminal convictions. Bilingual EN / ES.
Crimmigration is the colloquial name for the intersection of criminal law and immigration law. The field exists because federal immigration law uses its own categories for criminal conduct that often do not match state criminal classifications. A plea that looks routine in state court can trigger mandatory deportation in federal immigration law. A misdemeanor sentence that seems negligible to a criminal defense attorney can produce permanent banishment for the noncitizen client. The disconnect between criminal law and immigration law has produced one of the most technically complex and consequential areas of U.S. legal practice.
Effective crimmigration work has three phases. Pre-plea analysis identifies the immigration consequences of pending criminal charges and works with criminal defense counsel to seek alternative dispositions that preserve immigration status. Post-conviction relief challenges convictions that produced unforeseen immigration consequences, typically through state-court motions to vacate based on ineffective assistance of counsel under Padilla v. Kentucky. Removal defense based on criminal convictions represents noncitizens already in removal proceedings on the basis of criminal convictions, identifying every available defense and form of relief.
Federal immigration law uses several distinct categories for criminal conduct, each with its own definition, its own consequences, and its own analytical framework:
Aggravated felony is the most consequential category in crimmigration. An aggravated felony conviction generally produces:
The aggravated felony category does not match state criminal classifications. A theft offense with a 365-day sentence can be an aggravated felony for immigration purposes regardless of whether state law classifies it as a misdemeanor. A federal drug trafficking conviction is automatically an aggravated felony, but the precise statute and record of conviction matter when the offense is state drug law. Identifying potential aggravated felony exposure before plea is the most important single piece of crimmigration analysis in any case.
Federal immigration law contains dozens of grounds of deportability and inadmissibility triggered by criminal convictions. A single plea to a state misdemeanor that seems minor in criminal court can carry mandatory deportation consequences under INA § 237. Under Padilla v. Kentucky (2010), criminal defense counsel must advise noncitizen defendants of immigration consequences before any plea. Getting an immigration attorney involved before plea is the single most important step in any case involving a noncitizen defendant.
Immigration judges deciding crimmigration cases, and criminal defense attorneys representing noncitizen defendants, evaluate the same four legal levers in every case:
"Aggravated felony" is a federal immigration term of art under INA § 101(a)(43), not a state criminal classification. State convictions that are misdemeanors under state law can still be aggravated felonies for immigration purposes. An aggravated felony conviction generally produces mandatory deportation, mandatory detention, and bars most forms of relief from removal.
CIMTs trigger inadmissibility and deportability under INA § 212(a)(2) and § 237(a)(2). Whether a specific state conviction is a CIMT requires careful analysis of the statute of conviction, the record of conviction, and BIA and federal court precedent. Misidentified CIMTs are a major source of preventable deportation.
Controlled substance offenses under federal and state law trigger broad deportation and inadmissibility consequences under INA § 237(a)(2)(B) and § 212(a)(2)(A). Even minor possession convictions can produce serious immigration consequences, with narrow exceptions for first-time simple possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana.
Under Padilla v. Kentucky, criminal defense counsel must give specific advice on the immigration consequences of any plea. Failure to do so can be the basis for post-conviction relief vacating the conviction. Coordinated criminal-immigration work before plea, or post-conviction motions to vacate after a flawed plea, can preserve immigration status.
Defines aggravated felony for immigration purposes through a list of more than 20 categories including murder, drug trafficking, certain firearms offenses, theft offenses with sentences of 1 year or more, fraud offenses with loss above $10,000, and many others. Aggravated felony is a federal immigration term and does not match any state criminal classification. State misdemeanors can be aggravated felonies for immigration purposes if they fit one of the categories.
Lists the criminal grounds of deportability for noncitizens already in the United States: crimes involving moral turpitude (one CIMT within 5 years of admission with sentence of 1 year or longer, or two CIMTs at any time not arising from a single scheme), aggravated felonies, controlled substance offenses, firearms offenses, domestic violence offenses, and others. These grounds make noncitizens removable after a covered conviction, even when they have been lawful permanent residents for decades.
The Supreme Court held in Padilla v. Kentucky that the Sixth Amendment requires criminal defense counsel to advise noncitizen defendants of the immigration consequences of a plea. Failure to do so can constitute ineffective assistance of counsel and support post-conviction relief. The decision created a constitutional obligation that overlaps criminal defense and immigration law, making crimmigration analysis a routine part of any criminal case involving a noncitizen defendant.
Immigration law analyzes criminal convictions using the categorical approach. The adjudicator does not look at what the defendant actually did. The adjudicator looks at the statute of conviction and compares its elements to the federal immigration definition. If the statute's minimum elements match the federal definition, the conviction triggers immigration consequences. If the statute's minimum elements are broader than the federal definition (the statute covers conduct that would not fit the immigration category), the conviction may not trigger consequences. The categorical approach was clarified by the Supreme Court in Mathis v. United States (2016), Descamps v. United States (2013), and Mellouli v. Lynch (2015), and is one of the most important analytical tools in crimmigration.
The modified categorical approach applies to "divisible statutes" that contain multiple offenses or multiple ways to commit an offense. The adjudicator examines a limited set of documents (the record of conviction, charging document, plea colloquy, sentence) to determine which specific subdivision of the statute the defendant was convicted under. The analysis is technical and depends on the specific statute. Effective crimmigration work depends on understanding which statutes are divisible and how the modified categorical approach applies.
The most consequential phase of any crimmigration case is the pre-plea phase. Before the criminal case is resolved, the available options are at their broadest. Criminal defense counsel can negotiate alternative charges, alternative sentences, and alternative dispositions. The immigration attorney's role at this stage is to analyze the immigration consequences of each available option and advise the criminal defense team on which dispositions preserve immigration status. Common pre-plea strategies include:
When a criminal conviction has already produced immigration consequences that were not disclosed before plea, post-conviction relief can sometimes undo the conviction. The most common vehicle is a motion to vacate based on ineffective assistance of counsel under Padilla v. Kentucky (2010). To succeed on a Padilla motion, the noncitizen must generally show: (1) defense counsel failed to give the constitutionally required advice on immigration consequences; (2) the advice required by Padilla was clear at the time of the plea; and (3) the defendant would have made a different choice if properly advised. Post-conviction relief is a state-court procedure that requires expertise in both state criminal procedure and federal immigration law. The motion is filed in the state court that imposed the conviction.
The recurring problems trace back to four patterns. Criminal defense attorneys without crimmigration expertise advise clients to plea without thorough immigration analysis. Plea offers are accepted that trigger aggravated felony or CIMT consequences when alternatives were available. Post-conviction relief is pursued past the statutory deadline. And removal defense is mounted without understanding the categorical approach analysis that may show the conviction does not actually fit the charged immigration ground. Each of these is preventable with experienced crimmigration coordination.
Crimmigration is one of the most technically complex areas of U.S. legal practice. The categorical approach, the aggravated felony list, the CIMT case law, the controlled substance exceptions, the Padilla framework: all of these require careful analysis case by case. The right time to start the analysis is before plea, not after.
Start your crimmigration pre-evaluation today. We will assess the criminal charges, the potential immigration consequences, and the strongest strategy to preserve immigration status.
Every crimmigration case is different. The right strategy depends on the specific charges, the procedural posture, and the immigration status. Contact Ilabaca Law for a free, confidential pre-evaluation.
Crimmigration is the colloquial name for the intersection of criminal law and immigration law. The field analyzes how criminal convictions affect immigration status: which convictions trigger deportability under INA § 237, which trigger inadmissibility under INA § 212, which qualify as aggravated felonies under INA § 101(a)(43), which qualify as crimes involving moral turpitude (CIMT), and which bar specific forms of relief from removal. Crimmigration practice involves coordinating with criminal defense counsel, analyzing plea offers for immigration consequences, advising on post-conviction relief, and defending removal cases based on criminal convictions.
Federal immigration law uses categories that do not match state criminal classifications. "Aggravated felony" is the most important example: it is defined by federal immigration law in INA § 101(a)(43) and can include offenses that are misdemeanors in state court. A theft offense with a 365-day sentence can be an aggravated felony for immigration purposes even if state law treats it as a misdemeanor. A simple possession conviction can trigger broad deportation consequences under INA § 237(a)(2)(B). The disconnect between state criminal classifications and federal immigration consequences is the central problem in crimmigration.
Aggravated felony is a federal immigration term defined in INA § 101(a)(43) through a list of more than 20 categories. The categories include: murder; drug trafficking (including federal definition, not state); certain firearms offenses; theft, burglary, or violent crime offenses with sentences of 1 year or more; fraud or deceit offenses with loss above $10,000; tax evasion above $10,000; smuggling; sexual abuse of a minor; child pornography; and many others. An aggravated felony conviction triggers mandatory deportation, mandatory detention, ineligibility for most forms of relief, and the loss of LPR status if the noncitizen had a green card.
A crime involving moral turpitude is a category in U.S. immigration law that triggers inadmissibility under INA § 212(a)(2) and deportability under INA § 237(a)(2). The definition is judicial rather than statutory and has evolved through BIA and federal court precedent. Common CIMTs include theft offenses with intent to permanently deprive, fraud offenses, crimes of violence with significant intent elements, and certain sexual offenses. Common non-CIMTs include simple assault without aggravating elements, simple possession of controlled substances, and certain regulatory offenses. The CIMT analysis requires precise examination of the statute of conviction, the record of conviction, and controlling circuit court precedent.
Padilla v. Kentucky (2010) is a Supreme Court decision holding that the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel includes the duty of criminal defense counsel to advise noncitizen defendants of the immigration consequences of a plea. The decision overruled prior law that treated immigration consequences as "collateral" to the criminal case. Under Padilla, defense counsel must investigate and advise on whether a specific plea will produce deportation, inadmissibility, or other immigration consequences. Failure to do so can support post-conviction relief vacating the plea.
Yes, in many cases. Defenses to crimmigration deportation include: challenging the categorical analysis (arguing the conviction does not actually fit the immigration ground charged); post-conviction relief to vacate the underlying conviction on Padilla grounds or other constitutional grounds; seeking forms of relief from removal not barred by the conviction (asylum, withholding, CAT for protection-based relief; cancellation of removal for LPRs under § 240A(a) if no aggravated felony; certain § 212(h) waivers for criminal inadmissibility grounds); and prosecutorial discretion requests in deserving cases.
Post-conviction relief is the process of challenging a criminal conviction after sentencing, typically through state-court motions to vacate. In crimmigration, post-conviction relief is used to undo convictions that produced immigration consequences the defendant was not adequately advised of. Common bases include Padilla ineffective-assistance claims, prosecutorial misconduct, defective plea colloquies, and constitutional defects. Successful post-conviction relief eliminates the immigration consequence by vacating the underlying conviction, opening the door to relief from removal that the conviction had blocked.
Yes. Lawful permanent residents are subject to the deportability grounds in INA § 237, including the criminal grounds. An LPR who is convicted of an aggravated felony, multiple CIMTs, a controlled substance offense, a firearms offense, a domestic violence offense, or certain other crimes can be placed in removal proceedings and lose LPR status. This is one of the most consequential features of U.S. immigration law: LPR status is not the same as citizenship, and a green card holder facing criminal charges should always consult an immigration attorney before pleading.
Deportability under INA § 237 applies to noncitizens already inside the United States after lawful admission, including LPRs. Deportability grounds make the noncitizen removable from the U.S. Inadmissibility under INA § 212 applies at the time of seeking admission to the U.S., applying for a visa, or applying for adjustment of status. The two sets of grounds overlap substantially but are not identical. A conviction that does not trigger deportability may still trigger inadmissibility when the LPR seeks reentry after international travel or when an applicant seeks adjustment of status.
Sí. Los residentes permanentes (green card) están sujetos a los motivos de deportabilidad bajo INA § 237, incluyendo los motivos criminales. Una condena por una felonía agravada, múltiples crímenes de bajeza moral, ofensa de sustancias controladas, ofensa de armas de fuego, ofensa de violencia doméstica, u otras puede resultar en proceso de deportación y pérdida del estatus de residente. Es por esto que cualquier residente que enfrente cargos criminales debe consultar con un abogado de inmigración antes de declararse culpable o aceptar un acuerdo.
Before any plea, ideally as early as possible after the arrest or charging. The immigration analysis affects plea negotiations: certain charges and certain sentences trigger immigration consequences that others do not. Coordinating with the criminal defense attorney before plea allows the defense to seek alternative charges, alternative sentences, or alternative dispositions that preserve immigration status. The window before plea is the most consequential window in crimmigration. Post-plea consultation is still valuable but the available options are narrower.
Ilabaca Law charges a flat attorney fee for crimmigration representation, scoped to the specific work the case requires. The scope ranges from pre-plea consultation and coordination with criminal defense counsel (lower fee, narrower scope) to full removal defense representation based on criminal convictions (higher fee, broader scope) to post-conviction relief work (specific fee based on the post-conviction motion type). Cases involving multiple convictions, aggravated felony issues, or appellate work have their own scope. The free pre-evaluation maps the scope before any retainer.
Plea analysis, post-conviction relief, and removal defense based on criminal convictions.
The immigration consequences of a criminal conviction can be more severe than the criminal sentence itself. The right time to analyze the immigration impact is before plea, not after. A board-certified Florida crimmigration lawyer can review your case today.