For noncitizens, a criminal case can have consequences far beyond fines, probation, or jail. An arrest, plea, or conviction may also affect a green card, visa, naturalization application, ability to return to the United States, or risk of deportation.
That overlap between criminal law and immigration law is often called “crimmigration.” It is especially important in New York, where a decision that seems favorable in criminal court may create a serious immigration problem if no one considers both systems at the same time.
The Law Office of Patricia Machado handles both immigration law and criminal matters, allowing the legal team to evaluate how decisions in one case may affect the other. The goal is not simply to resolve the criminal charge, it is to understand the possible effect on your ability to remain in the United States.
Crimmigration describes the intersection of criminal law and federal immigration law.
A U.S. citizen charged with a crime generally focuses on the criminal consequences: Will the charge be dismissed? Is jail possible? Can the offense be reduced? For a noncitizen, those questions are only part of the analysis.
A criminal matter may also affect whether someone is considered admissible to the United States, becomes deportable after admission, qualifies for certain forms of immigration relief, or can establish the good moral character required for some immigration benefits. Federal immigration law specifically identifies criminal grounds involving crimes of moral turpitude, controlled substances, multiple convictions, and other offenses.
Importantly, a criminal charge is not automatically the same as an immigration conviction or an automatic basis for deportation. The specific statute, plea, disposition, sentence, immigration status, and history all matter.
One of the biggest crimmigration traps is assuming that a result that avoids a traditional conviction under state law is necessarily safe for immigration purposes.
The Immigration and Nationality Act has its own definition of “conviction.” Under INA § 101(a)(48)(A), a formal judgment of guilt qualifies, but some cases in which adjudication is withheld may also count when the person enters a guilty or no-contest plea, is found guilty, or admits sufficient facts and the court imposes some punishment, penalty, or restraint on liberty.
That means a diversionary or deferred disposition should never be evaluated only by asking whether it leaves a criminal record under New York law.
Before accepting a plea, particularly to a felony charge, a noncitizen should understand what the exact disposition means under federal immigration law.
There is no reliable one-page list of “safe” and “unsafe” crimes. Immigration consequences often turn on the exact elements of the criminal statute and the person’s circumstances.
Several categories deserve particular attention.
A crime involving moral turpitude, commonly called a CIMT, is an immigration-law classification rather than a specific New York criminal charge.
The term is highly technical. Immigration authorities generally examine the elements of the offense to determine whether it involves sufficiently reprehensible conduct and a culpable mental state. Depending on the circumstances, offenses involving fraud, theft, or certain intentional conduct may fall within this category, while other superficially similar crimes may not.
CIMTs can affect both inadmissibility and deportability, but the rules are not identical. Timing, possible sentence, number of convictions, and statutory exceptions can change the outcome. For example, federal law contains a narrow “petty offense” exception to one CIMT-based inadmissibility ground when specific requirements are satisfied.
Drug cases can produce particularly serious immigration consequences.
INA § 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) addresses certain controlled-substance convictions and legally sufficient admissions for inadmissibility purposes. For deportability, INA § 237(a)(2)(B)(i) generally covers qualifying controlled-substance convictions, with a narrow statutory exception involving a single offense for personal possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana.
This area requires special caution because New York drug law and federal controlled-substance law do not always classify substances in exactly the same way.
Anyone dealing with immigration with a criminal record should have the exact statute, plea documents, and disposition reviewed rather than relying on the name of the offense.
“Aggravated felony” is another immigration term that can be misleading.
An offense does not necessarily need to be called an aggravated felony, or even necessarily be labeled a felony under state law, to fit a federal immigration definition. Federal immigration law contains numerous aggravated-felony categories, and a qualifying conviction can create deportability and restrict eligibility for important forms of immigration relief. INA § 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) expressly makes a noncitizen convicted of an aggravated felony after admission deportable.
Because the consequences can be severe, these cases require precise statutory analysis.
A plea that looks favorable from a purely criminal perspective may be much less favorable from an immigration perspective.
Suppose prosecutors offer a plea that avoids jail. That may sound like an obvious win. But if the particular conviction creates a ground of removal or makes someone ineligible for an immigration benefit, avoiding incarceration may not address the client’s biggest long-term concern.
The reverse may also be true: sometimes a different charge, plea structure, or sentence can produce a materially different immigration analysis even when the criminal penalties look similar.
That is why criminal defense for a noncitizen should account for immigration consequences before a plea is entered whenever possible—not after the criminal case is finished.
Potentially, yes. Lawful permanent residence does not protect someone from every criminal ground of removability.
Federal law contains deportability provisions covering certain CIMTs, multiple CIMTs, aggravated felonies, controlled-substance offenses, firearms offenses, and other specified conduct. Whether a particular conviction fits one of those grounds depends on the statute and immigration history.
A green card holder facing removal may still have defenses or forms of relief depending on the circumstances. Someone already in immigration proceedings should speak with an attorney about deportation defense rather than assuming a criminal conviction automatically determines the outcome.
Crimmigration cases sit between two complicated legal systems.
A criminal lawyer needs to understand that the immigration consequence may matter as much as or more than the criminal sentence. An immigration lawyer needs the complete criminal record, including the charging instrument, statute and subsection, plea, sentence, and final disposition.
Our firm is structured around that overlap. Our team practices both immigration and criminal defense under one roof, which allows both sides of the problem to be evaluated together rather than treating immigration consequences as an afterthought.
Do not assume that a misdemeanor is immigration-safe or that a plea is harmless because it avoids jail. Avoid making important plea decisions until the immigration consequences have been evaluated.
Gather your charging documents, prior criminal dispositions, immigration documents, and information about your immigration history. Be completely candid with your attorney about prior arrests, convictions, entries into the United States, and previous immigration applications.
Most importantly, get advice that considers both cases at the same time.
If you are facing criminal charges in New York and are concerned about your green card, visa, citizenship application, or risk of removal, contact the Law Office of Patricia Machado. Call (212) 568-4550 to discuss the criminal and immigration consequences together.
