For a long time, the answer to this question was yes. In Matter of Cota-Vargas, 23 I&N Dec. 849 (BIA 2005) and Matter of Song, 23 I&N Dec. 173 (BIA 2001), the Immigration Appeal Board stated that court orders varying or reducing a penalty are valid for immigration purposes, regardless of the reason for the action. Therefore, sentence modification was a useful strategy for non-citizens who were able to eliminate the immigration consequences of a crime by requesting a modification of the original sentence. Those days are now over and this strategy is no longer available. In Matter of Thomas and Thompson, 27 I&N Dec. 674 (A.G. 2019), published 25. In October 2019, the attorney general overturned the decisions of Song and Cota-Vargas, noting that these decisions no longer govern the effect of state court orders that alter or otherwise alter a noncitizen`s criminal sentence. Instead, such state court orders will only be recognized for immigration purposes if they relate to a procedural or factual error in the underlying criminal proceeding. If such orders were made for reasons of rehabilitation or to avoid the immigration consequences of the offence, the modification of the sentence will not be recognized. Where are the non-citizens who have already successfully implemented a penalty change, hoping to avoid future consequences for immigration? Does the Attorney General`s decision affect the legislative changes to avoid immigration consequences that were achieved when Cota-Vargas and Song were still in effect? This issue is not addressed in the decision, so the issue of retroactivity remains open to future arguments and litigation.
Legal immigrants are foreign-born individuals who are legally accepted into the United States. Undocumented immigrants, also known as illegal aliens, are foreign-born individuals who do not hold a valid visa or other immigration documents because they entered the United States without inspection, stayed longer than their temporary visa is allowed, or otherwise violated the conditions under which they were admitted. For multiple criminal inadmissibility and deportation grounds, the sentence imposed determines whether the ground exists. For example, to be deported for a serious crime of theft, the non-citizen must have been sentenced to at least one year in prison. And to qualify for the exemption of a minor offence from inadmissibility from a crime with moral rejection, the crime must not be punishable by a maximum penalty of one year, and each sentence imposed must not exceed six months in prison. In situations where the sentence imposed is part of inadmissibility or deportation, can you escape the consequences of a change in sentence? Immigration Appeals Board and Circuit Court Case Case: IMCTs Related to Assaults Illegal presence bans: Do they continue after returning to the United States? This table provides a summary of BIA and district court jurisprudence regarding the analysis of moral rejection (LMIC) crimes for assault-related offenses.