Yes, juvenile charges can affect immigration. Under federal immigration law, a juvenile delinquency adjudication is generally not a conviction, as the Board of Immigration Appeals has held. The exceptions matter: immigration law also looks at conduct in some settings, such as good moral character for naturalization, and a conviction in adult court after transfer is treated as a conviction.

This page explains how a juvenile case and immigration law meet. It covers what immigration law calls a conviction, when juvenile conduct can still matter, how transfer to adult court changes the picture, what sealing does, and how the stage at which a case ends shapes the question. Immigration consequences are governed by federal immigration law, and in any real case they depend on the facts.

The Short Answer: Juvenile Adjudications Are Generally Not Convictions Under Federal Immigration Law — With Important Exceptions

The general rule starts with a definition. Federal immigration law, at INA § 101(a)(48)(A) (8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(48)(A)), defines a "conviction" as a formal judgment of guilt entered by a court or, if adjudication of guilt has been withheld, a situation where a judge or jury has found the person guilty (or the person has pleaded guilty or no contest or admitted sufficient facts to warrant a finding of guilt) and the judge has ordered some form of punishment, penalty or restraint on the person's liberty. The statute's definition does not mention juvenile adjudications. The Board of Immigration Appeals reaffirmed in Matter of Devison-Charles, 22 I&N Dec. 1362 (BIA 2000), that "an adjudication of youthful offender status or juvenile delinquency is not a conviction for a crime for purposes of the immigration laws."

Two terms need plain meanings here. In juvenile court, an adjudication is the court's finding that the minor committed the alleged offense. It is the juvenile-court counterpart of a finding of guilt, but it is not called a conviction. A conviction, in immigration law, is whatever fits the INA definition above.

Two exceptions keep this from being a simple yes or no. First, immigration law looks at conduct, not only at convictions, in some contexts, including good moral character decisions (INA § 316(e)) and the controlled substance trafficker ground of inadmissibility (INA § 212(a)(2)(C)). Whether a particular ground reaches conduct from a juvenile case is a question of immigration law that depends on the facts. Second, if a minor's case is transferred to adult court and the minor is convicted there, that is an adult criminal conviction for immigration purposes.

Which side of the line a case falls on is a question of federal immigration law: the Board has held that "the standards established by Congress, as embodied in the [Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act], govern whether an offense is to be considered an act of delinquency or a crime." Each state sets its own juvenile-court rules, so the same conduct can be handled differently from one state to the next.

How Immigration Law Defines a Conviction — and Why Juvenile Adjudications Are Generally Outside It

INA § 101(a)(48)(A) sets out two paths to a conviction. The first is a formal judgment of guilt entered by a court. The second applies where adjudication of guilt has been withheld: a conviction still exists if a judge or jury has found the person guilty, or the person has pleaded guilty or no contest or admitted enough facts to support a finding of guilt, and the judge has ordered some form of punishment, penalty or restraint on the person's liberty.

The Board of Immigration Appeals has stated that it has "consistently held that juvenile delinquency proceedings are not criminal proceedings, that acts of juvenile delinquency are not crimes, and that findings of juvenile delinquency are not convictions for immigration purposes" (Matter of Devison-Charles). That is the basis of the general rule that leaves juvenile adjudications outside the definition.

Diversion is a process in which a case is resolved without a formal adjudication, through a program or an agreement with conditions.

Deferred adjudication works differently. A finding is held back while the person completes conditions. Under the second path of INA § 101(a)(48)(A), a case in which adjudication of guilt has been withheld still counts as a conviction if a judge or jury has found the person guilty, or the person has pleaded guilty or no contest or admitted sufficient facts to warrant a finding of guilt, and the judge has ordered some form of punishment, penalty or restraint on the person's liberty.

For these reasons, whether a case stays in juvenile court or moves to adult court sits at the center of the immigration analysis. How any one case is treated depends on its facts and the exact form of its resolution.

When Juvenile Records Can Still Matter to USCIS and Immigration Courts

Not being a conviction is not the same as being invisible. Several parts of immigration law look at conduct, not only at convictions.

Good moral character is required for naturalization under INA § 316(a) (8 U.S.C. § 1427(a)) and for certain other immigration benefits. When United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) evaluates good moral character, it can consider conduct that never led to a conviction.

Inadmissibility is the set of reasons a person can be found ineligible to be admitted or to adjust status. The criminal grounds are in INA § 212(a)(2) (8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)). Some of those grounds turn on a conviction; others turn on admitting having committed certain acts (INA § 212(a)(2)(A)(i)) or on what an officer "knows or has reason to believe" (INA § 212(a)(2)(C)). The Board has treated acts of juvenile delinquency as "not crimes," so whether any of these grounds reaches conduct from a juvenile case is a question of immigration law that depends on the facts and that this page does not cover.

Controlled substances have their own grounds of inadmissibility: INA § 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) (a conviction for, or an admission of committing the essential elements of, a violation of a law relating to a controlled substance) and INA § 212(a)(2)(C) (an illicit trafficker, or someone an officer knows or has reason to believe is or has been one). Whether any of them reaches a juvenile case is a question of immigration law this page does not cover. Families dealing with juvenile drug charges may find these grounds relevant.

INA § 212(a)(2)(A)(ii) also limits the moral-turpitude ground in two situations, often called the petty offense exception and the youthful offender exception. Both apply only to a person who committed only one crime. Under the youthful offender exception, the crime was committed when the person was under 18 years of age, and it was committed (and the person released from any confinement to a prison or correctional institution imposed for it) 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. Under the petty offense exception, the maximum penalty possible for the crime did not exceed imprisonment for one year and, if the person was convicted, the sentence did not exceed 6 months. The statute applies these exceptions to the moral-turpitude ground, clause (i)(I), and not to the controlled substance ground. Whether either exception applies depends on the specific offense, the person's age at the time and the facts.

Transfer to Adult Court: When a Juvenile Case Becomes an Adult Criminal Conviction

Transfer is the process by which a juvenile court sends a minor's case to adult criminal court. Once a case is transferred and the minor is convicted in adult court, the general exclusion for juvenile adjudications no longer applies. That conviction is an adult criminal conviction for immigration purposes, and the ordinary immigration consequences of an adult conviction can follow. Those consequences can include inadmissibility (INA § 212(a)(2)), deportability (INA § 237(a)(2)) and bars to a finding of good moral character (INA § 101(f)).

The age at which transfer is possible, the offenses that qualify and the process all differ by state. California's rule serves as the worked example here, and it is California's rule only.

Under Welf. & Inst. Code § 707, the prosecutor may move to transfer a minor who was 16 or older at the time of an alleged offense listed in subdivision (b), or of any other felony. A narrower path covers a person alleged to have committed a listed offense at 14 or 15 who was not apprehended before juvenile court jurisdiction ended. The motion must be made before jeopardy attaches, and the probation officer must prepare a report on the minor's behavioral patterns and social history.

To transfer, the court "shall find by clear and convincing evidence that the minor is not amenable to rehabilitation while under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court." The court must consider five criteria:

  • the degree of criminal sophistication the minor showed
  • whether the minor can be rehabilitated before juvenile court jurisdiction expires
  • the minor's previous delinquent history
  • the success of previous attempts by the juvenile court to rehabilitate the minor
  • the circumstances and gravity of the alleged offense

Each criterion carries factors the court must weigh, such as the minor's age, maturity, childhood trauma and potential to grow. For a minor who is not a citizen, the result of a transfer hearing bears on the conviction question described above. More on the hearing appears on this site's page on juvenile felony defense.

Does Immigration Look at Sealed Juvenile Records?

Sealing is a court process that restricts access to a juvenile record. Under California law, sealed records are not open to inspection except as the sealing statutes allow. Sealing is an order under California law, and immigration law is federal law. What a federal agency can obtain, and what an immigration form asks an applicant to disclose, are questions of federal law that this page does not cover.

California offers two sealing routes, and these are California's rules. Under Welf. & Inst. Code § 781, a person may petition to seal records five years or more after juvenile court jurisdiction ended, or at any time after turning 18. After a hearing, the court must order sealing if it finds the person has not been convicted of a felony or of a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude since then and that rehabilitation has been attained to its satisfaction. For an offense listed in § 707(b) that was committed after the person turned 14 and resulted in wardship, a petition may be filed or considered under § 781 only if the person was committed to the former Division of Juvenile Facilities, has turned 21 and has completed probation supervision after release from the division, or was not so committed, has turned 18 and has completed any probation supervision related to that offense. That limit does not apply if the offense was dismissed or reduced to a misdemeanor by the court. A record of such an offense for which the person is required to register under Penal Code § 290.008 shall not be sealed under § 781.

Under Welf. & Inst. Code § 786, when a person satisfactorily completes informal supervision under Section 654.2, probation under Section 725, or a term of probation for any offense, the court shall dismiss the petition and seal the records. Satisfactory completion is deemed to have occurred if the person has no new findings of wardship or conviction for a felony offense or a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude during the period of supervision or probation and has not failed to substantially comply with the reasonable orders of supervision or probation that are within the person's capacity to perform. Under § 786(d), the court shall not seal a record or dismiss a petition if the petition was sustained based on a § 707(b) offense committed at 14 or older, unless that finding was dismissed or reduced to a misdemeanor or to a lesser offense not on that list. Records are also sealed when a petition is dismissed or not sustained after an adjudication hearing. Sealing is never simply automatic at 18.

After a § 786 dismissal, the proceedings "shall be deemed not to have occurred," and the person may reply accordingly to inquiries by "employers, educational institutions, or other persons or entities." Whether that state rule governs an answer on a federal immigration form is a question of federal immigration law this page does not cover.

Naturalization and Juvenile Records: The Good Moral Character Question

INA § 316(a) (8 U.S.C. § 1427(a)) requires that an applicant for naturalization "has been and still is a person of good moral character" during all the periods the subsection refers to, which include the five years immediately preceding the date of filing the application.

The agency is not limited to that window. INA § 316(e) (8 U.S.C. § 1427(e)) says the agency "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." The provision does not mention juvenile adjudications, and whether and how conduct from a person's juvenile years is weighed is a question of immigration law that this page does not cover.

The statute works in two ways. INA § 101(f) (8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)) lists classes of persons who cannot be found to have good moral character; several turn on conduct or convictions during the period for which good moral character must be shown, and one applies to a person who "at any time has been convicted of an aggravated felony." Beyond that list, § 101(f) says that not being within the listed classes "shall not preclude a finding that for other reasons such person is or was not of good moral character."

A dismissal with no finding or admission of guilt and no court-ordered punishment is not a conviction under INA § 101(a)(48)(A), but the good moral character provisions above look at more than convictions. While a case is still open, the court calendar and an application timeline can overlap, and how they overlap depends on facts this page cannot know.

How Juvenile Cases Generally Move Through Court — and What That Means for Immigration

Each stage of a juvenile case can end it in a different way, and immigration law looks at both the outcome and the nature of the conduct behind it. The stages generally run as follows, though names and timing vary by state.

  • Petition: the document filed in juvenile court that starts a delinquency case.
  • Detention hearing: an early hearing where the court decides whether a minor is held or released while the case continues.
  • Adjudication hearing: the hearing where the court decides whether the minor committed the alleged offense.
  • Disposition: the court's decision about what happens after a petition is sustained.
  • Ward of the court: a minor placed under the juvenile court's supervision.
  • Probation: a period of supervision with conditions.
  • Diversion: a process that resolves a case without a formal adjudication.

How a case ends shapes the immigration question. A case that ends in diversion or dismissal generally produces no adjudication. A case that ends in an adjudication of delinquency is generally not a conviction under the INA. A case transferred to adult court and ending in conviction is an adult conviction.

In California, the stages also connect to sealing. Under Welf. & Inst. Code § 786, finishing informal supervision or probation satisfactorily generally leads to dismissal and sealing, and a petition that is dismissed or not sustained is sealed as well. California's transfer and sealing rules are described above. The same stages apply whatever the alleged offense, from juvenile robbery charges to juvenile weapons charges.

Three Distinctions Behind the Questions Below

The questions below turn on three distinctions: an adjudication versus an adult conviction, a sealed record versus an unsealed one, and diversion or dismissal versus an adjudication. The answers draw on the sections above.

If You'd Like to Talk Through Your Child's Case

A juvenile case with an immigration concern alongside it turns on details such as whether a transfer motion has been filed, which petition is pending and how the case may resolve. This page does not cover the immigration law that governs a particular application.

A request for a consultation about a child's juvenile case can be made through Juvenile Justice Defense Group.