My question involves criminal law for the state of: California
I was involved in petty theft of $110 worth of items in Mar 2004. I hired an attorney and we pleaded 'not guilty' and the case was dismissed. The court had me do 40 hours of voluntary service and i had to take some consultation classes for 40 hours. I completed all of that successfully.
Now, my dillemna is I have a citizenship interview next Tuesday and I am not sure if the above incident would affect my citizenship? I was a permanent resident at the time I committed this biggest mistake of my life of stealing something.
The reason I stole was because I had an argument with my mom and I was just not thinking form my mind...
I am overall a very good student and that's the only mark I have in my background.
Please advise If my citizenship can be denied on a dismissed pleaded not guilty case which occured 4.5 years ago.
Thank you very much!!
Depends on what the charges were. Stealing has various levels of charges ... petty theft, grand larceny, armed robbery, etc. Even though you stole something, you might legitimately disagree with the level of crime they charged you with.putting aside this court mumo-jumbo, poster admit he stole and then pleaded not guilty!
that not guilty woul be a lie as poster admits s/he stole. you cannot be not guilty if you say you stole.
this is moral character issue.
stealing and lying about it.
Depends on what the charges were. Stealing has various levels of charges ... petty theft, grand larceny, armed robbery, etc. Even though you stole something, you might legitimately disagree with the level of crime they charged you with.
Admitting being involved in a theft is not the same as admitting guilt. For instance, you could be threatened and your life could be in danger unless you steal. That would most likely be called innocent even though involved into a crime. Another example is a mentally ill patient who steals. There are other examples too.
But the OP did not mention being charged with petty theft. Maybe the charge was for something more serious, but in the OP's mind or the lawyer's opinion it was only petty theft. Or the charge was for a different grade of petty theft (if they have such distinctions) than the OP and his/her lawyer thinks it should be.I already read that OP said "petty theft" and s/he pleaded not guilty and s/he admits s/he did steal and was engaged in petty theft.
I said those two were just examples. There are more cases when ia person is innocent after stealing.But OP says s/he stole and nothing about any duress or being a mental patient.
He admits being involved into a crime. That is not the same as stealing. And moreover not the same as being guiltyActually OP says he had a fight with his mom and was not thinking from his mind when stealing!!!! This is not a valid excuse!!!!! This certainly won't hold up in any court in the World!!! He admits to stealing and not pleading guitly to petty theft. So this is 2 issues:
He does not.#1. stealing (petty theft) a fact he admits to
#2. Not pleading guilty to #1.
The #2 would be a lie since he admits to stealing (petty theft).
With not guilty plea, charges being dismissed and the above intent that holds true.... How would all of this impact the citizenship.
You don't know that, as you haven't seen the facts of the case. Even with Not Guilty or charges dismissed, it is still possible to be considered guilty under immigration law.Everything will be fine. You look clean. You were not convicted in terms of immigration law, and this incident does not count at all.
"An admission from the alien of sufficient facts to warrant a finding of guilt" means a finding of guilt by the courts, eventhough the defendant may have pleaded guilty. For example, if I go to court for a drunk driving charge, plead not guilty, and the judge asks me several questions for which the answers I provide are "sufficient facts" to have the court find me guilty."An admission from the alien of sufficient facts to warrant a finding of guilt" is not the same as directly admitting guilt.
Are you saying that their arrest were considered a conviction for immigration purposes eventhough they were not found guilty by courts? If so, any references to this?Remember that people have been found guilty for immigration purposes, even though they pleaded not guilty and the court found them not guilty.
You did not see the court transcript or the police report of what the OP said while being arrested, so you don't know the facts, and you have no basis on which to know whether the OP admitted sufficient facts to warrant a finding of guilt. Neither do you have the qualifications. Neither do I. The OP should rely on somebody who has seen ALL the facts of the case, who also has the qualifications to properly evaluate the facts.
How many times do I have to repeat it? The court does not have to find you guilty in order to be considered a conviction for immigration purposes! Court conviction and immigration conviction are not the same thing! Charges dismissed in the court can still mean guilty for immigration purposes. I know the court didn't find the OP guilty. I am referring to the possibility of USCIS making its own determination of guilt based on the facts.That's why I said "unless the OP omitted that the court found him guilty".
How many times do I have to repeat it? The court does not have to find you guilty in order to be considered a conviction for immigration purposes! Court conviction and immigration conviction are not the same thing! Charges dismissed in the court can still mean guilty for immigration purposes. I know the court didn't find the OP guilty. I am referring to the possibility of USCIS making its own determination of guilt based on the facts.
No, that is not true. In the very paragraph you quoted, it shows that when adjudication is withheld, which implies the court did NOT make a determination of guilt, the facts admitted on the court transcript can still be used by USCIS to find you convicted for immigration purposes.I understand "Sufficient for a finding of guilt" means that the courts have found you guilty, not an IO at an interview who asks you questions about the case and makes his/her own determination of guilt.
That's a contradiction :"Adjudication of guilt withheld means court did NOT make determination of guilt"No, that is not true. In the very paragraph you quoted, it shows that when adjudication is withheld, which implies the court did NOT make a determination of guilt, the facts admitted on the court transcript can still be used by USCIS to find you convicted for immigration purposes.
Very easily. Court cases are public records. And they even have access to the non-public records such as expunged or sealed convictions.Also, how would USICS get hold of the court transcripts to come to their own determination of guilt as this is not something they ask for (with convictions) on the standard N-659 document checklist?
Only under p.2 of the quote from 9 FAM. Which is only if the adjudication has been deferred,You don't know that, as you haven't seen the facts of the case. Even with Not Guilty or charges dismissed, it is still possible to be considered guilty under immigration law.
This did not happen.(1) A formal judgment of guilt entered by a court; or
This did not happen either.(2) If adjudication has been withheld,
Even if those actually happened all, but adjudication was not withheld, it still does not matter.(a) either:
• A finding of guilty by judge or jury; or
• A plea of guilty or nolo contendere by the alien; or
• An admission from the alien of sufficient facts to warrant a finding of guilt; and
Why do you still not get it? USCIS can make its own determination of guilt based on the admitted facts, regardless of whether the court did so. Court guilt and Immigration guilt are not the same thing!
Very easily. Court case are public records. And they even have access to the non-public records such as expunged or sealed convictions.