Was the violation a “conviction” under immigration law? While Congress defined conviction in INA § 101(a)(48), the BIA in Matter of Eslamizar, 23 I&N Dec. 684 (BIA 2004), added an important restriction: “conviction” meant criminal conviction and in order for a conviction to be criminal certain constitutional procedural protections had to have been in place.[3]Wichita proceedings do not provide appointed counsel, or the right to demand a jury in every case.

The Third Circuit examined the BIA’s initial interpretation of INA § 101(a)(48)(A), which defined “the term ‘conviction’ as ‘a formal judgment of guilt of the alien entered by a court.’” Id. at 17 (discussing Matter of Eslamizar, 23 I&N Dec. 684 (BIA 2004)). Meaning, “Congress meant only that the adjudicative finding of a court must carry the label ‘guilt’ or ‘guilty.’