Immigration Consequences, and a California DUI Conviction
A California DUI conviction has several legal consequences, including a drivers license suspension due to DUI and standard California DUI penalties.
Generally speaking, a standard first-time DUI conviction will not trigger immigration consequences. But a DUI causing injury, DUI of drugs, child endangerment charges (for driving while intoxicated with a child in the car), or multiple DUI convictions could all have serious immigration ramifications.
To help you make sense of all this, William Daley, a San Diego, California DUI defense lawyers will explain the following:
1. Overview of Immigration Issues
2. Whether a California DUI Conviction Could Result in Removal (Deportation) from the United States
3. Whether a California DUI Conviction Could Lead to Inadmissibility
4. A California DUI Conviction’s Impact on Adjustment of Status
5. A California DUI Conviction’s Impact on Naturalization
If you have any questions after reading this article or would like to discuss your case with a DUI defense or criminal defense attorney, please contact one of our law office.
You may also find helpful information in my related articles onCalifornia DUI Laws, DMV hearings in California DUI cases, DUI court process in California, California’s driving under the influence of drugs laws, Penalties in California DUI cases, Defenses to California DUI, DUI Field Sobriety Tests, California DUI blood test, and California DUI breath test.
1. Overview of Immigration Issues
The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) contains a majority of the federal laws that govern immigration in the United States. It covers topics ranging from how a foreigner can apply for and obtain a visa to enter the country, how long he can legally stay, how he might adjust his status to a legal permanent resident, and how he may naturalize. The INA also governs what types of acts could make an alien inadmissible, deportable, denied adjustment of status, or ineligible for naturalization.
Today, there is one type of hearing, known as a “removal hearing,” to handle exclusion and removal. Exclusion, otherwise known as inadmissibility, applies to aliens who are seeking entry (whether the first time or upon returning from a trip abroad). 1 On the other hand, removal, otherwise known as deportation, applies to aliens already present within the country. 2
Although the same proceeding is used for deportation and inadmissibility, the INA provides two separate lists of criminal acts that are grounds for the two actions. One list specifies which types of crimes could render an alien deportable and another specifies which types of crimes could render an alien inadmissible. 3 These lists sometimes overlap.
On the other end of the spectrum, the INA explains the requirements and factors involved in adjustment of status and naturalization. Adjustment of status, otherwise known as obtaining a green card or becoming a legal permanent resident, entails a thorough review of the applicant’s history. One of the “threshold” issues is that the alien is admissible and eligible for a visa. 4 In exercising discretion, the reviewer must take into account all positive and negative factors. Positive factors include unification of the family, meeting the needs of an American business, and humanitarian reasons.
Naturalization, also known as obtaining citizenship, also involves a long and thorough process. To even be eligible for naturalization, the applicant must satisfy the requirements of residency, good moral character, English and civics knowledge, and be attached to the United States Constitution. 5 A criminal conviction is a large factor in determining good moral character.
2. Whether a California DUI Conviction Could Result in Removal (Deportation) from the United States
Section 237 of the INA contains a laundry list of offenses that upon conviction, would make an alien deportable. A California DUI conviction could fall into three of the categories of deportable offenses:
- a crime involving moral turpitude,
- an aggravated felony, or
- an offense related to controlled substances. 6
Crime Involving Moral Turpitude
Under Section 237, an alien is deportable if he commits a crime involving moral turpitude within the first five years after he is admitted (or 10 years if he is a legal permanent resident) and the crime carries a maximum penalty of at least a year of confinement.
The term “involving moral turpitude” is vague. 7 The INA has not defined it, but courts have relied on the Board of Immigration Appeal’s interpretation, which defines moral turpitude as “a nebulous concept, which refers generally to conduct that shocks the public conscience.” 8 This includes conduct that is inherently base, vile, or depraved and not acceptable for persons living in a society. 9 Although one factor is whether the act is accompanied by a vicious motive or corrupt mind, “the presence or absence of a corrupt or vicious mind is not controlling.” 10
Examples include fraud, murder, voluntary manslaughter, kidnapping, robbery, rape, aggravated assaults, spousal abuse, child abuse, theft, and incest. 11
In determining whether a conviction constitutes “moral turpitude,” the courts look to the statute under which the alien is convicted. 12 The court focuses on whether the statute required the prosecution to show a culpable mental state, such as, knowledge, intention, or reckless conduct. 13 For immigration purposes, the statute is all that matters; the factual circumstances of the actual crime are irrelevant. 14
The Board of Immigration Appeals has held that simple DUI convictions are not crimes of moral turpitude because the statutes do not require any culpable mental state. 15 Merely driving while you are under the influence of alcohol is enough for a DUI conviction and the BIA holds that more is needed to constitute moral turpitude. 16
However, a California DUI conviction is a crime of moral turpitude if there is an aggravating factor, such as at the time of the DUI, the defendant was also driving on a suspended license or had a child in the car, resulting in endangerment.
Example: In In re Lopez-Meza, the Board of Immigration Appeals held that an Arizona DUI committed while the defendant was driving on a suspended license was a crime of moral turpitude and the defendant was deportable. The BIA focused on the fact that the defendant knew she should not have driven under any circumstance, but chose to, in addition to choosing to drink when she knew she was going to drive. 17 In other words, the defendant was committing a DUI while she had knowledge that her license was suspended, canceled, or revoked. 18 Such an act was against society’s moral standard and thus, was a crime of moral turpitude.
Example: In Hernandez-Perez v. Holden, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed whether an Iowa DUI conviction in addition to a conviction of child endangerment constituted a crime of moral turpitude. In that case, the defendant, an undocumented alien, was found ineligible for cancellation of removal because he had been convicted of a crime of moral turpitude. The defendant had been convicted of a DUI with child endangerment resulting in injury. In deciding the defendant committed a crime of moral turpitude, the court focused on the statute of the child endangerment. 19 Under Iowa law, a conviction of child endangerment required a showing that the defendant knowingly risked a minor child’s safety. 20 Thus, although the Iowa DUI statute alone was not a crime of moral turpitude, the aggravating factor of a conviction of child endangerment was enough to make the conviction a crime of moral turpitude.
Similar to the DUI statutes from other states, California’s DUI statute does not require a culpable mental state. 21 Thus, the BIA will most likely not find a simple California DUI to be a crime of moral turpitude. However, the California statutes for driving on a suspended license and child endangerment do require a culpable mental state. 22 Therefore, if you are an alien and are convicted of a DUI with these aggravating factors, you will most likely have committed a crime of moral turpitude and could be deportable.
Aggravated Felony
Section 237 of the INA also categorizes aliens convicted of “aggravated felonies” deportable. Section 101(a)(43) of the INA name several crimes that constitute an aggravated felony. 23 One broad category of crimes listed in that section is “a crime of violence . . . for which the term of imprisonment [is] at least one year.” 24
In the past, a DUI conviction was deemed a crime of violence and an alien with a DUI conviction would be deportable under the aggravated felony category. However, this trend was reversed in 2004.
In Leocal v. Ashcroft, the United States Supreme Court determined a defendant’s conviction of DUI with injury under a Florida statute did not constitute “crime of violence.” 25 In coming to its conclusion, the Court reviewed and analyzed the definition of “crime of violence” in other federal legislation. 26 The Court found that for a conviction to constitute a “crime of violence,” the crime must include a mental state higher than “the merely accidental or negligent conduct involved in a DUI offense.” 27
Similar to the Florida DUI statute, California’s DUI statute does not require a culpable mental state. 28 Therefore, a California DUI conviction would most likely not constitute a crime of violence and would not be a deportable aggravated felony conviction.
Offense Related to Controlled Substances
If an alien is convicted of driving under the influence of drugs (DUID) under California law, he could be deportable if the drug he was using or under the influence of is listed in the Controlled Substances Act.
In order to deport an alien under this category, the government must show:
- the “controlled substance” is regulated by the CSA, except a single offense of possessing for one’s own use 30 grams or less of marijuana, and
- the DUID statute relates to a controlled substance.
In order to remove an alien under this category, the government must prove the controlled substance at issue is listed in the CSA schedules. The California Vehicle Code defines “drug” broadly to mean “any substance or combination of substances, other than alcohol.” In other words, a California DUID conviction could be based on a drug that is not listed in the CSA schedules. 29 Therefore, to remove an alien under this category based on a California DUID conviction the government must prove that the controlled substance at issue is outlawed by California law and federal law. 30
Example: Jason, a non-citizen, is convicted for California DUID based on geometrical isomers, which are regulated by California law, but are not listed in the CSA schedules. Therefore, Jason’s DUID conviction could not trigger the “offense related to controlled substances” category under the INA. Jason would not be deportable.
The “relating to” language is construed broadly. 31 An offense relates to a controlled substance if it is “specifically aimed at the regulation or prohibition of controlled substances.” 32 For instance, in Flores-Arellano v. INS, the Ninth Circuit held that a law regulating the use or being under the influence of amphetamine and methamphetamine is an offense related to controlled substances under the INA. 33 Since California’s DUID law is aimed at regulating the use or being under the influence of any drug that could impair a person’s driving abilities, a court would most likely hold that California’s DUID law relates to controlled substances.
In conclusion, if you are convicted of a DUID where the drug used is listed in the CSA, you will most likely be deportable.
3. A California DUI Conviction Could Lead to Inadmissibility
Section 212 lists the classes of aliens who are ineligible to receive United States visas or obtain admission into the United States. A California DUI could make an alien inadmissible if it is:
- a crime involving moral turpitude,
- an offense related to controlled substances (as stated in the Controlled Substances Act), 34 and
- one of two or more convictions for which the aggregate sentences of imprisonment were five or more years. 35
A crime involving moral turpitude
As discussed above, a simple California DUI has been determined to not be a conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude because there is no required showing of a culpable mental state. 36 However, a California DUI with aggravating factors, such as driving on a suspended license or child endangerment, could constitute a crime involving moral turpitude. 37 If the California DUI does have these additional factors, then the alien would be inadmissible.
An offense related to controlled substances
Furthermore, as discussed above, a California DUID conviction is related to controlled substances under the INA only if it involves the use of a drug listed in the CSA. 38 Therefore, in order to find an alien inadmissible, the government must show that the underlying drug in a California DUID conviction is listed in the CSA.
Multiple convictions
A California DUI carries severe penalties, any of which could result in jail time. If an alien has already served time for a prior conviction and is sentenced to serve more time for a California DUI conviction, he could be inadmissible if the total imprisonment is five or more years. 39
Example: Joey, a non-citizen, has served 4 years for a prior offense. He then gets convicted of a DUI, which involved driving at excessive speeds and causing an accident. He is sentenced to the maximum one-year in county jail. Now that Joey has been convicted of 2 offenses with an aggregate sentence of imprisonment of five years, he is inadmissible.
Exceptions
However, an alien is not inadmissible under these provisions if:
- the crime was committed when he or she was under 18-years-old and it occurred more than 5 years before applying for a visa or other documentation to gain admission into the U.S., or
- the maximum penalty for the convicted crime did not exceed one year of imprisonment and the alien was not actually sentenced to imprisonment for more than 6 months. 40
4. A California DUI Conviction Could Result in a Denial of Adjustment of Status
Section 245 of the INA governs how an alien can adjust his or her status to become a legal permanent resident. In order to qualify, the alien must be eligible for a visa and admissible to the United States. 41 Therefore, if the alien’s California DUI conviction causes him to become inadmissible, he cannot adjust his status.
As discussed above, a California DUI conviction would make an alien inadmissible if the conviction is found to be a crime involving moral turpitude, relates to a controlled substance, or is a second conviction with an aggregate sentence of imprisonment of five years or more.
A simple California DUI conviction is not a crime involving moral turpitude. 42 However, if the conviction involved aggravating factors, such as driving without a license or child endangerment, it could. 43 Furthermore, a California DUI conviction would relate to a controlled substance under the INA only if it was a drug listed in the CSA. 44 Lastly, a California DUI would result in a bar to adjustment of status if it is a second conviction and brings the aggregate period of imprisonment over five years. 45
5. A California DUI Conviction’s Impact on Naturalization
Section 316 of the INA contains the requirements for naturalization. Among the requirements is that the applicant has and maintains good moral character. 46 In reviewing an application to naturalize, the Attorney General can review the person’s conduct from all time periods, but focuses on the five years preceding the application. 47 Thus, any criminal history, including a California DUI, could affect a person’s application to naturalize.
A single simple California DUI conviction would most likely not bar an applicant from naturalization. In Ragoonanan v. USCIS, a federal Minnesota court addressed the specific question of whether a DUI conviction could bar naturalization. 48 The USCIS denied Ragoonanan’s Application for Naturalization (Form N-400) on the grounds that he failed to establish that he “has been and still is a person of good moral character” within five years of his application as required for naturalization. 49 However, the federal court overturned USCIS’s determination because it could find no law stating that a single DUI resulting in probation bars naturalization. 50 Federal courts in Texas have agreed with Ragoonanan and held that two DUI convictions did not bar the applicant from establishing good moral character. 51
However, there is a limit. In Rico v. INS, the court held that an applicant lacks good moral character when he has been convicted of five DUIs, a third-degree rape, and a finding that the applicant’s testimony lacked candor. 52
Contact us for help…
After reading this article, we hope you understand how much a California DUI conviction could affect your life, if you are a non-citizen. Therefore, it is very important to consult an attorney if you are a non-citizen and are facing DUI charges. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss your case confidentially with a San Diego DUI defense attorney, please do not hesitate to contact us.
1 Judulang v. Holder (2011) 565 U.S. __, __.)
2 Ibid.
3 INA §§ 237, 212.
4 INA § 245(a)(2).
5 “A Guide to Naturalization,” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 18-21.
6 INA § 237(a)(2)(A)(i) ["Crimes of moral turpitude – Any alien who—(I) is convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude committed within five years (or 10 years in the case of an alien provided lawful permanent resident status under section 1255(j) of this title) after the date of admission, and (II) is convicted of a crime for which a sentence of one year or longer may be imposed, is deportable."]
7 Jordan v. De George (1951) 341 U.S. 223, 229-32 [noting the term "moral turpitude" is ambiguous, but not unconstitutionally vague].
8 Chu v. Cornell (9th Cir. 1957) 247 F.2d 929, cert. denied, (1958) 355 U.S. 892; see also Franklin v. INS (8th Cir. 1995) 72 F.3d 571, 573, aff’g, Matter of Franklin (BIA 1994) 20 I&N Dec. 867.
9 Matter of L-V-C- (BIA 1999) Interim Decision 594; Matter of Danesh (BIA 1988) 19 I&N Dec. 669; see also Rodriguez-Herrera v. INS (9th Cir. 1995) 52 F.3d 238; Grageda v. INS (9th Cir. 1993) 12 F.3d 919, 921.
10 Keungne v. U.S. Attorney General (11th Cir. 2009) 561 F.3d 1281, 1284 (per curium) [quoting In re Medina (BIA 1976) 15 I. & N. Dec. 611, 614].
11 See 6 Charles Gordon, et al., Immigration Law and Procedure § 71.05[1][d] (rev. ed. 1999)
12 Matter of Khourn (BIA 1997) 21 I&N Dec. 1041.
13 McNaughton v. INS (9th Cir. 1980) 612 F.2d 457, 459; Godinez-Arroyo v. Mukasey (8th Cir. 2008) 540 F.3d 848, 851.
14 Goldeshtein v. INS (9th Cir. 1993) 8 F.3d 645, 647.
15 In re Lopez-Meza (BIA 1999) Interim Decision 3423 [after reviewing immigration case law and Arizona's DUI law, determined that a simple DUI does not involve moral culpability because there is no culpable mental state requirement].
16 Cal. Veh. Code § 23152 ["Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drugs – (a) It is unlawful for any person who is under the influence of any alcoholic beverage or drug, or under the combined influence of any alcoholic beverage and drug, to drive a vehicle. (b) It is unlawful for any person who has 0.08 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood to drive a vehicle."]
17 In re Lopez-Meza (BIA 1999) Interim Decision 3423 [holding a conviction of aggravated DUI involved moral turpitude because the statute required the prosecution to prove the defendant had knowledge she was driving on a suspended, canceled, or revoked license].
18 Id.
19 Hernandez-Perez v. Holden (8th Cir. 2009) 569 F.3d 345.
20 Iowa Code § 726.6 [A person is guilty of child endangerment if he is "the parent, guardian or person having custody or control" over a minor child and "[k]knowingly acts in a manner that creates a substantial risk to a child or minor’s physical, mental, or emotional health or safety.”]
21 Compare Cal. Veh. Code § 23152 ["Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drugs – (a) It is unlawful for any person who is under the influence of any alcoholic beverage or drug, or under the combined influence of any alcoholic beverage and drug, to drive a vehicle. (b) It is unlawful for any person who has 0.08 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood to drive a vehicle."], with, Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 28-692(A)(1) (1997) ["It is unlawful for any person to drive or be in actual physical control of any vehicle within this statue under any of the following circumstances: 1. While under the influence of intoxicating liquor, any drug, a vapor releasing substance containing a toxic substance of any combination of liquor, drugs, or vapor releasing substances if the person is impaired to the slightest degree."]; and Iowa Code § 321J.2 ["Operating while under the influence of alcohol or a drug or while having an alcohol concentration of .10 or more (OWI) – (1) A person commits the offense of operating while intoxicated if the person operates a motor vehicle in this state in any of the following conditions: (a.) While under the influence of an alcoholic beverage or other drug or combination of such substances (b.) While having an alcohol concentration of .10 or more. (c.) While any amount of a controlled substance is present in the person, as measured in the person's blood or urine."]
22 Cal. Veh. Code § 14601 ["Driving When Privilege Suspended or Revoked-(a) No person shall drive a motor vehicle at any time when that person's driving privilege is suspended or revoked for reckless driving in violation of Section 23103, 23104, or 23105, any reason listed in subdivision (a) or (c) of Section 12806 authorizing the department to refuse to issue a license, negligent or incompetent operation of a motor vehicle as prescribed in subdivision (e) of Section 12809, or negligent operation as prescribed in Section 12810.5 , if the person so driving has knowledge of the suspension or revocation. Knowledge shall be conclusively presumed if mailed notice has been given by the department to the person pursuant to Section 13106. The presumption established by this subdivision is a presumption affecting the burden of proof."]; Cal. Penal Code § 273a ["(a) Any person who, under circumstances or conditions likely to produce great bodily harm or death, willfully causes or permits any child to suffer, or inflicts thereon unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering, or having the care or custody of any child, willfully causes or permits the person or health of that child to be injured, or willfully causes or permits that child to be placed in a situation where his or her person or health is endangered, shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison for two, four, or six years. (b) Any person who, under circumstances or conditions other than those likely to produce great bodily harm or death, willfully causes or permits any child to suffer, or inflicts thereon unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering, or having the care or custody of any child, willfully causes or permits the person or health of that child to be injured, or willfully causes or permits that child to be placed in a situation where his or her person or health may be endangered, is guilty of a misdemeanor."]
23 INA §101(a)(43) ["The term "aggravated felony" means – (A) murder, rape, or sexual abuse of a minor; (B) illicit trafficking in a controlled substance (as defined in section 802 of title 21), including a drug trafficking crime (as defined in section 924(c) of title 18); (C) illicit trafficking in firearms or destructive devices (as defined in section 921 of title 18) or in explosive materials (as defined in section 841(c) of that title); (D) an offense described in section 1956 of title 18 (relating to laundering of monetary instruments) or section 1957 of that title (relating to engaging in monetary transactions in property deprived from specific unlawful activity) if the amount of the funds exceeded $10,000; (E) an offense described in (i) section 842 (h) or (i) of title 18, or section 844(d), (e), (f), (g), (h), or (i) of that title (relating to explosive materials offenses); (ii) section 922 (g)(1), (2), (3), (4), or (5), (j), (n), (o), (p), or (r) or 924 (b) or (h) of title18 (relating to firearms offenses); or (iii) section 5861 of title 26 (relating to firearms offenses); (F) a crime of violence (as defined in section 16 of title 18, but not including a purely political offense) for which the term of imprisonment at least one year; (G) a theft offense (including receipt of stolen property) or burglary offense for which the term of imprisonment at least one year; (H) an offense described in section 875, 876, 877, or 1202 of title 18 (relating to the demand for or receipt of ransom); (I) an offense described in section 2251, 2251A, or 2252 of title 18 (relating to child pornography); (J) an offense described in section 1962 of title 18 (relating to racketeer influenced corrupt organizations), or an offense described in section 1084 (if it is a second or subsequent offense) or 1955 of that title (relating to gambling offenses), for which a sentence of one year imprisonment or more may be imposed; (K) an offense that—(i) relates to the owning, controlling, managing, or supervising of a prostitution business; (ii) is described in section 2421, 2422, or 2423 of title 18 (relating to transportation for the purpose of prostitution) if committed for commercial advantage; or (iii) is described in any of sections 1581–1585 or 1588–1591 of title 18 (relating to peonage, slavery, involuntary servitude, and trafficking in persons); (L) an offense described in—(i) section 793 (relating to gathering or transmitting national defense information), 798 (relating to disclosure of classified information), 2153 (relating to sabotage) or 2381 or 2382 (relating to treason) of title 18; (ii) section 421 of title 50 (relating to protecting the identity of undercover intelligence agents); or (iii) section 421 of title 50 (relating to protecting the identity of undercover agents); (M) an offense that—(i) involves fraud or deceit in which the loss to the victim or victims exceeds $10,000; or (ii) is described in section 7201 of title 26 (relating to tax evasion) in which the revenue loss to the Government exceeds $10,000; (N) an offense described in paragraph (1)(A) or (2) of section 1324 (a) of this title (relating to alien smuggling), except in the case of a first offense for which the alien has affirmatively shown that the alien committed the offense for the purpose of assisting, abetting, or aiding only the alien's spouse, child, or parent (and no other individual) to violate a provision of this chapter (O) an offense described in section 1325 (a) or 1326 of this title committed by an alien who was previously deported on the basis of a conviction for an offense described in another subparagraph of this paragraph; (P) an offense -(i) which either is falsely making, forging, counterfeiting, mutilating, or altering a passport or instrument in violation of section 1543 of title 18 or is described in section 1546(a) of such title (relating to document fraud) and (ii) for which the term of imprisonment is at least 12 months, except in the case of a first offense for which the alien has affirmatively shown that the alien committed the offense for the purpose of assisting, abetting, or aiding only the alien's spouse, child, or parent (and no other individual) to violate a provision of this chapter; (Q) an offense relating to a failure to appear by a defendant for service of sentence if the underlying offense is punishable by imprisonment for a term of 5 years or more; (R) an offense relating to commercial bribery, counterfeiting, forgery, or trafficking in vehicles the identification numbers of which have been altered for which the term of imprisonment is at least one year; (S) an offense relating to obstruction of justice, perjury or subornation of perjury, or bribery of a witness, for which the term of imprisonment is at least one year; (T) an offense relating to a failure to appear before a court pursuant to a court order to answer to or dispose of a charge of a felony for which a sentence of 2 years' imprisonment or more may be imposed; and (U) an attempt or conspiracy to commit an offense described in this paragraph. The term applies to an offense described in this paragraph whether in violation of Federal or State law and applies to such an offense in violation of the law of a foreign country for which the term of imprisonment was completed within the previous 15 years. Notwithstanding any other provision of law (including any effective date), the term applies regardless of whether the conviction was entered before, on, or after September 30, 1996."]
24Id. § 101(a)(43)(F).
25 (2004) 543 U.S. 1, 4.
26 Id. at pp. 6-7.
27 Id. at p. 11.
28 Compare Fla. Stat. § 316.193 ["Driving under the influence; penalties – (1) A person is guilty of the offense of driving under the influence and is ubject to punishment as provided in subsection (2) if the person is driving or in actual physical control of a vehicle within this state and: (a) The person is under the influence of alcoholic beverages, any chemical substance set forth in s. 877.111, or any substance controlled under chapter 893, when affected to the extent that the person's normal faculties are impaired; (b) The person has a blood-alcohol level of 0.08 or more grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood; or (c) The person has a breath-alcohol level of 0.08 or more grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath."], with, Cal. Veh. Code § 23152 ["Driving Under Influence of Alcohol or Drugs – (a) It is unlawful for any person who is under the influence of any alcoholic beverage or drug, or under the combined influence of any alcoholic beverage and drug, to drive a vehicle. (b) It is unlawful for any person who has 0.08 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood to drive a vehicle."]
29 Ruiz-Vida v. Gonzales (9th Cir. 2007) 473 F.3d 1072, 1078.
30 Id. at 1076.
31 See Luu-Le v. INS (9th Cir. 1993) 224 F.3d 911, 915, abrogated on other grounds, INS v. St. Cyr (2001) 533 U.S. 289.
32 Coronado-Durazo v. INS (9th Cir. 1997) 123 F.3d 1322, 1325.
33 Flores-Arellano v. INS (9th Cir. 1993) 5 F.3d 360.
34 INA § 212(a)(2)(A)(i) ["In general.-Except as provided in clause (ii), any alien convicted of, or who admits having committed, or who admits committing acts which constitute the essential elements of- (I) a crime involving moral turpitude (other than a purely political offense) or an attempt or conspiracy to commit such a crime, or (II) a violation of (or a conspiracy or attempt to violate) any law or regulation of a State, the United States, or a foreign country relating to a controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)), is inadmissible.""]
35 Id. § 212(a)(2)(B) ["Multiple criminal convictions.-Any alien convicted of 2 or more offenses (other than purely political offenses), regardless of whether the conviction was in a single trial or whether the offenses arose from a single scheme of misconduct and regardless of whether the offenses involved moral turpitude, for which the aggregate sentences to confinement 2/ were 5 years or more is inadmissible."]
36 In re Lopez-Meza (BIA 1999) Interim Decision 3423.
37 Ibid.
38 Ruiz-Vida v. Gonzales (9th Cir. 2007) 473 F.3d 1072, 1078.
39 INA § 212(a)(2)(B).
40 Id. § 212(a)(2)(A)(ii) ["Exception.-Clause (i)(I) shall not apply to an alien who committed only one crime if-(I) the crime was committed when the alien was under 18 years of age, and the crime was committed (and the alien released from any confinement to a prison or correctional institution imposed for the crime) more than 5 years before the date of application for a visa or other documentation and the date of application for admission to the United States, or (II) the maximum penalty possible for the crime of which the alien was convicted (or which the alien admits having committed or of which the acts that the alien admits having committed constituted the essential elements) did not exceed imprisonment for one year and, if the alien was convicted of such crime, the alien was not sentenced to a term of imprisonment in excess of 6 months (regardless of the extent to which the sentence was ultimately executed)."]
41 INA § 245(a)(2) [requiring the alien to be admissible to the United States]; Id. § 245(c)(6) [aliens who are deportable are ineligible to adjust their status]
42 In re Lopez-Meza (BIA 1999) Interim Decision 3423.
43 Ibid.
44 Ruiz-Vida v. Gonzales (9th Cir. 2007) 473 F.3d 1072, 1078.
45 INA § 212(a)(2)(B).
46 INA § 316(a) ["No person, except as otherwise provided in this title, shall be naturalized, unless such applicant, (1) immediately preceding the date of filing his application for naturalization has resided continuously, after being lawfully admitted for permanent residence, within the United States for at least five years and during the five years immediately preceding the date of filing his application has been physically present therein for periods totaling at least half of that time, and who has resided within the State or within the district of the Service in the United States in which the applicant filed the application for at least three months, (2) has resided continuously within the United States from the date of the application up to the time of admission to citizenship, (3) during all the periods referred to in this subsection has been and still is a person of good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States."]
47 Id. § 316(e) ["In determining whether the applicant has sustained the burden of establishing good moral character and the other qualifications for citizenship specified in subsection (a) of this section, the Attorney General shall not be limited to the applicant's conduct during the five years preceding the filing of the application, but may take into consideration as a basis for such determination the applicant's conduct and acts at any time prior to that period."]
48 No. 07-3461 (D. Minn. Dec. 18, 2007) 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92922.
49 Ibid.
50 Ibid.
51 Cajiao v. Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Servs. of the Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. H-03-2582 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 30, 2004) 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29734; Yaqub v. Gonzalez, No. 1:05-cw-170 (June 5, 2006) 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36727.
52 (E.D.N.Y. 2003) 262 F. Supp. 2d 6.
