A common question asked by defense attorneys is whether a deferred prosecution or pre-trial diversion would have any adverse immigration consequences for their non-citizen clients. In other words, are these diversionary programs considered convictions? The answer depends on the type of diversionary program. Some are considered convictions, while others are not.
THE LAW:
For immigration purposes, a conviction is defined in INA § 101(a)(48) (A) as a formal judgment of guilt of the alien entered by a court or, if adjudication of guilt has been withheld, where-
(i) a judge or jury has found the alien guilty or the alien has entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere or has admitted sufficient facts to warrant a finding of guilt, and
(ii) the judge has ordered some form of punishment, penalty, or restraint on the alien's liberty to be imposed.
TYPES OF PROGRAMS:
Diversionary programs tend to fall into one of two categories:
1) Pre-trial diversion; or
2) Deferred adjudication.
It is important to analyze the details of the program, and not just rely on the name. Different jurisdictions use different titles, and a "deferred prosecution" in one court may be different than a deferred prosecution in another, yet the same as a "deferred adjudication" or "pre-trial diversion" in a third jurisdiction.
WHAT TO LOOK FOR:
1) Admitting Facts to Warrant a Finding of Guilt:
In general, pre-trial diversion is the better program because it usually does not require the defendant to enter an admission to the elements. For this reason, it would not be considered a conviction for immigration purposes. Deferred prosecution agreements, on the other hand, tend to involve an admission of guilt by the defendant, with a deferral of the entry of judgment. Such a deferred prosecution agreement would be considered a conviction because of the admission of guilt.
2) Punishment:
Regarding the required "form of punishment, penalty or restraint on the alien's liberty", this has been interpreted quite broadly, and would include custody, home detention, or other limits on the alien's liberty.
IN SAN DIEGO FEDERAL COURT (A CASE EXAMPLE):
Recently, I have been asked to analyze offers from the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of California. From what I have seen, the offers tend to be deferred adjudication agreements, wherein the defendant would enter a guilty plea before a magistrate judge, admitting the elements of the offense. There would not be an entry of judgment. The defendant would then be placed on probation for a specific period of time. Upon successful completion of probation, the parties would move the court to dismiss the case.
Unfortunately, this would be considered a conviction for immigration purposes. Why? Because the defendant is admitting the elements in court, and the judge is imposing some restraint on the defendant's liberty through the terms of probation. While there may be benefits to this type of deal, attorneys should be aware that it would still have potential adverse immigration consequences and advise their clients accordingly.