A Criminal Record and Your Immigration Case: Green Cards, Citizenship and Removal

An arrest or conviction can affect a family green card, prevent citizenship, or put an existing green card holder at risk of deportation. An arrest alone is not a conviction, and a conviction does not automatically decide every immigration case. The result depends on the criminal statute, court disposition, sentence, immigration history, and available exceptions or relief. At Atlas Immigration Law, we review those records together before recommending a family application, citizenship filing, or removal defense. If criminal charges are pending, the immigration review should happen before any plea.

Why choose Atlas for a case involving criminal history?

A criminal record creates questions that cross immigration categories. A family relationship may support a green card application while a conviction creates an admissibility problem. An old plea may matter both to citizenship eligibility and to whether a permanent resident can be removed.

We approach those questions as one case. Our founder and managing attorney, Jordan Weinberg, leads Atlas Immigration Law, a Dallas immigration law firm with an office at 1920 McKinney Ave. We represent individuals and employers in all 50 states, work in English and Spanish, and offer remote consultations.

Clients speak directly with the attorney and have a dedicated paralegal on their case. Our same-business-day response policy applies to messages received during business hours. Through Atlas Vision, clients can complete questionnaires, upload documents, and access filed forms and status updates in one place.

That structure matters when a criminal defense lawyer needs an immigration assessment or a family needs to understand a removal notice. We organize the records, identify the legal questions, and explain what must be resolved before the next filing.

Request a free 20-minute consultation or call (945) 219-5599. At the end of the consultation, we quote a flat fee in writing if we can help.

What counts as a conviction under immigration law?

The state court’s description does not control the federal immigration result. Under INA 101(a)(48)(A), a formal judgment of guilt counts as a conviction. When adjudication is withheld, a conviction can still exist if there is a guilty or no-contest plea, a finding of guilt, or an admission of sufficient facts, together with punishment, a penalty, or a restraint ordered by a judge.

This is why Texas deferred adjudication usually counts as a conviction for immigration purposes even when the state case is later dismissed. “I completed probation” and “the charge was dismissed” do not answer whether the federal definition was met. We need the plea and disposition records.

An arrest without a conviction requires a different analysis. We check whether charges were filed, how they ended, and whether the records establish a qualifying immigration conviction. We also distinguish grounds that require a conviction from inadmissibility grounds that can involve legally sufficient admissions.

Expunction or sealing generally does not eliminate a conviction when the relief is rehabilitative. Under Matter of Roldan, a state procedure that clears a record after successful rehabilitation ordinarily does not erase the federal immigration consequence.

A conviction vacated because of a legal defect in the underlying proceedings is different. Under Matter of Pickering, that conviction no longer counts for immigration purposes. The reason for the vacatur matters; the order and supporting court records must establish its basis. The State Department’s criminal inadmissibility guidance explains these distinctions.

When someone tells us a record was “cleared,” we ask for the order. Dismissal, expunction, sealing, and vacatur describe different actions. Choosing a filing strategy without understanding which action occurred can leave the central immigration problem unresolved.

Family green cards: criminal inadmissibility and waiver review

A family green card case involves more than proving the family relationship. The applicant must also address applicable grounds of inadmissibility under INA 212. A qualifying spouse or other family relationship does not, by itself, overcome a criminal ground.

Crimes involving moral turpitude, often called CIMTs, are a central category. We analyze the statute of conviction rather than deciding from the offense’s name or a short description of the incident. Whether a particular conviction falls within this category requires legal analysis of the offense’s elements.

The petty offense exception can matter when the person has committed only one crime involving moral turpitude. The maximum possible sentence must be 1 year or less, and the sentence actually imposed must be 6 months or less. A short sentence alone is insufficient if the offense carried a higher maximum. We verify both limits and the complete offense history.

Controlled substance offenses require separate attention. INA 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) addresses convictions and qualifying admissions involving controlled substance violations. A favorable answer under the CIMT rules does not resolve a drug-related ground.

INA 212(h) can waive certain criminal grounds, including qualifying CIMTs, multiple convictions, prostitution-related grounds, and a single offense of simple possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana. It does not cover other drug offenses.

Depending on the applicable route, the analysis may involve extreme hardship to a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse, parent, son, or daughter. Another route addresses qualifying conduct more than 15 years old and rehabilitation. Additional statutory restrictions can apply, including restrictions affecting some permanent residents; meeting an initial hardship or rehabilitation requirement does not guarantee eligibility or approval.

Our discussion of immigration waivers provides context, but the first task is identifying every applicable ground. A waiver request must address the actual legal obstacle.

If a prior immigration fraud finding is also involved, bring the written finding and underlying application records. We assess it separately from the criminal history. A criminal waiver should never be assumed to resolve a different immigration finding.

Existing green card holders: when a conviction can lead to removal

Permanent residence does not eliminate criminal grounds of deportability. INA 237 applies to people already admitted to the United States, including green card holders. These rules differ from the inadmissibility rules used in many green card applications and entry decisions.

A single CIMT can create deportability when it was committed within 5 years after admission and the offense permits a sentence of 1 year or longer. The possible sentence matters, even when the punishment imposed was less severe. We examine the admission history and offense date together.

Two CIMT convictions not arising from a single scheme can create a separate deportability ground. A conclusion based only on the most recent case may therefore miss the effect of an older conviction.

An aggravated felony conviction is another ground. “Aggravated felony” is a federal immigration classification defined in INA 101(a)(43). We check the conviction against that definition rather than relying on how someone informally describes its seriousness.

Controlled substance convictions also create removal risks. The statutory exception under INA 237(a)(2)(B)(i) covers a single offense involving possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana for personal use. That exception does not broadly protect other drug offenses.

The marijuana deportability exception and the marijuana provision in a criminal inadmissibility waiver serve different purposes. One concerns whether a particular deportability ground applies; the other concerns possible relief from inadmissibility. They should not be treated as interchangeable.

If you face removal, we first examine whether the conviction supports the government’s charge and then assess potential relief. A deportation defense attorney needs the criminal documents and immigration history to do both. If detention is involved, bring the custody paperwork so we can also assess questions addressed in our resource on immigration bond hearings.

Citizenship: why old arrests still matter

Naturalization requires a review of good moral character during the applicable statutory period, generally 5 years or 3 years for qualifying spouses of U.S. citizens. USCIS may also examine conduct before that period. An old case is not automatically irrelevant because it falls outside the usual review window.

Certain convictions create permanent bars. Under 8 CFR 316.10(b)(1), a murder conviction, or an aggravated felony conviction on or after November 29, 1990, permanently bars establishing good moral character for naturalization. Other criminal histories require analysis of the particular ground and relevant period.

The naturalization application asks about arrests, citations, and charges, including matters that were sealed or expunged. A dismissed charge may require disclosure even though it did not produce a conviction. The disclosure question and the conviction analysis are separate tasks.

Leaving something out can create an additional problem. False testimony under oath given to obtain an immigration benefit can itself affect good moral character. We compare the criminal records with the application answers and prepare clients to explain the documented history accurately.

A citizenship filing can also expose an existing removal issue. A permanent resident with a removable offense who files for naturalization can be referred to removal proceedings. The question is therefore broader than whether USCIS might deny citizenship: we must also examine whether the record threatens permanent residence.

Review naturalization eligibility before filing, particularly if an old case involved deferred adjudication, a drug offense, or a conviction you were told had disappeared. Waiting longer does not automatically cure a removable conviction or a permanent bar. The applicable rule must be identified first.

Comparing the decisions: a plea, a filing, or removal relief

The same criminal record can raise different questions at different stages. We use the following distinctions to identify what needs attention first.

For a pending criminal case, immigration counsel should speak with criminal defense counsel before any plea. Padilla v. Kentucky requires defense lawyers to advise noncitizen clients about deportation risk. The immigration review should address the proposed disposition, rather than beginning only after the agreement is final.

For permanent residents facing removal, INA 240A(a) provides a potential form of cancellation. Its baseline requirements include at least 5 years as a lawful permanent resident, 7 years of continuous residence after admission in any status, and no aggravated felony conviction. Meeting those requirements does not guarantee a favorable exercise of discretion.

The stop-time rule is critical. A qualifying offense referred to in INA 212(a)(2) that makes the person inadmissible or removable can stop the residence clock when the offense is committed. The relevant date can therefore precede the conviction. We build the timeline from admission, permanent residence, and offense records rather than estimating from years spent in the country. The Executive Office for Immigration Review summarizes the permanent-resident requirements.

Our separate article on cancellation of removal addresses the other form of relief: cancellation for non-permanent residents under INA 240A(b). The permanent-resident analysis here concerns INA 240A(a); the eligibility rules are different.

For legal costs, the concrete starting point is our free 20-minute consultation. If we can help, we quote a flat fee in writing at its conclusion. A meaningful scope depends on whether the work involves a planned application, coordination over a pending plea, or defense in removal proceedings.

What to gather before your immigration review

Start with certified dispositions and charging documents for every arrest. Include cases that were dismissed, sealed, expunged, or resolved through deferred adjudication. A background-check summary can identify an event, but it does not replace the underlying court documents.

For each matter, gather:

• The charging document: It identifies the alleged offense and statutory provision.
• The certified disposition: It establishes how the court resolved the case.
• The plea and judgment records: They help determine whether an immigration conviction exists.
• The sentence: Include punishment or restraint ordered by the judge.
• Any later court orders: Provide dismissals, expunctions, sealing orders, or vacatur orders with their stated grounds.

We analyze the statute of conviction using the categorical approach. That generally focuses on the legal elements of the offense rather than simply deciding what happened from a police narrative or personal account. Depending on the statute, particular conviction records may also matter. A clear explanation of the incident is useful, but it cannot substitute for identifying the exact conviction.

Bring immigration records alongside the criminal file: evidence of admissions and permanent residence, prior applications, government notices, and any written fraud finding. For citizenship, compare every arrest with prior disclosures. For removal, include the government’s charging document and any hearing or custody notices.

If a deadline or proposed plea is approaching, identify it when contacting us. Do not delay the initial conversation because one certified record is missing. Tell us what you have and what remains outstanding so we can identify the documents needed for a reliable assessment.

How Atlas can help

We review your criminal dispositions, offense statutes, sentences, immigration history, and any prior fraud finding together. We identify the questions affecting your family green card, citizenship application, or removal defense, including whether a proposed plea needs immigration review.

You leave the consultation knowing which records remain necessary, what issues require further analysis, and the next step we recommend. If we can help, we provide a flat-fee quote in writing at the end.

Request a [free 20-minute consultation](/contact) or call (945) 219-5599.

This guide is part of our asylum and removal defense services — the service page covers eligibility, fees, and how we handle these cases.

Jordan S. Weinberg, Esq.

Founder & Managing Attorney, Atlas Immigration Law

Member of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) and the Dallas Bar Association. Licensed to practice in Texas; fluent in English and Spanish.

Legally reviewed by a licensed immigration attorney

This guide is general information, not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Immigration law and procedures change, and how they apply depends on your specific facts — consult a licensed immigration attorney about your situation.