CIMT Five-Year Rule Under INA §237(a)(2)(A)(i)

How the five-year timing requirement works for a single crime involving moral turpitude, including the controlling admission date, the date the offense was committed, and the effect of later adjustments or entries.

A single CIMT triggers INA §237(a)(2)(A)(i) only when the crime was committed within five years after the relevant admission and the offense is one for which a sentence of one year or longer may be imposed. Matter of Alyazji generally ties the five-year clock to the admission by virtue of which the person was present when the crime was committed.

For CIMT five-year rule, the practitioner should map the CIMT five-year rule charge before making concessions. The CIMT five-year rule map should identify the conviction, the CIMT five-year rule statutory comparator, the governing CIMT five-year rule method, and the evidence that current CIMT five-year rule law permits.

Matter of Alyazji rejected the idea that any prior or later admission automatically restarts the five-year clock; the relevant admission is ordinarily the admission by virtue of which the respondent was present when the offense was committed.

Within CIMT five-year rule, this proposition frames the CIMT five-year rule dispute. The clause “Matter of Alyazji rejected the idea that any prior or later admission automatically restarts the five-year clock” must be linked to CIMT five-year rule authority before “the relevant admission is ordinarily the admission by virtue of which the respondent was present when the offense was committed.” is treated as established. Matter of Alyazji, 25 I&N Dec. 397 (BIA 2011) supplies a published CIMT five-year rule reference for the legal method or qualifier involved.

A CIMT five-year rule record on rule 1 should identify the CIMT five-year rule document proving the conviction, the CIMT five-year rule source proving the legal rule, and the CIMT five-year rule fact that remains disputed. That rule-specific CIMT five-year rule structure keeps allegations from replacing the legally operative CIMT five-year rule requirement.

The statute measures five years from the date of admission to the date the crime was committed, not the conviction date, plea date, sentencing date, or date DHS issues the Notice to Appear.

Within CIMT five-year rule, this proposition limits the CIMT five-year rule dispute. The clause “The statute measures five years from the date of admission to the date the crime was committed” must be linked to CIMT five-year rule authority before “not the conviction date” is treated as established. Matter of Ortega-Lopez, 27 I&N Dec. 382 (BIA 2018) supplies a published CIMT five-year rule reference for the legal method or qualifier involved.

A CIMT five-year rule record on rule 2 should identify the CIMT five-year rule document proving the conviction, the CIMT five-year rule source proving the legal rule, and the CIMT five-year rule fact that remains disputed. That rule-specific CIMT five-year rule structure keeps allegations from replacing the legally operative CIMT five-year rule requirement.

Adjustment of status can be treated as an admission in some deportability settings, but the Alyazji analysis requires attention to whether that adjustment is the admission connected to the period of presence during which the offense occurred.

Within CIMT five-year rule, this proposition defines the CIMT five-year rule dispute. The clause “Adjustment of status can be treated as an admission in some deportability settings” must be linked to CIMT five-year rule authority before “but the Alyazji analysis requires attention to whether that adjustment is the admission connected to the period of presence during which the offense occurred.” is treated as established. Matter of Carrillo, 25 I&N Dec. 99 (BIA 2009) supplies a published CIMT five-year rule reference for the legal method or qualifier involved.

A CIMT five-year rule record on rule 3 should identify the CIMT five-year rule document proving the conviction, the CIMT five-year rule source proving the legal rule, and the CIMT five-year rule fact that remains disputed. That rule-specific CIMT five-year rule structure keeps allegations from replacing the legally operative CIMT five-year rule requirement.

A later departure and readmission can create a new period of admitted presence; counsel should chart every entry, admission class, adjustment, and departure rather than assume the oldest admission controls.

Within CIMT five-year rule, this proposition narrows the CIMT five-year rule dispute. The clause “A later departure and readmission can create a new period of admitted presence” must be linked to CIMT five-year rule authority before “counsel should chart every entry” is treated as established. Matter of Alyazji, 25 I&N Dec. 397 (BIA 2011) supplies a published CIMT five-year rule reference for the legal method or qualifier involved.

A CIMT five-year rule record on rule 4 should identify the CIMT five-year rule document proving the conviction, the CIMT five-year rule source proving the legal rule, and the CIMT five-year rule fact that remains disputed. That rule-specific CIMT five-year rule structure keeps allegations from replacing the legally operative CIMT five-year rule requirement.

The five-year requirement belongs to the single-CIMT ground in INA §237(a)(2)(A)(i); it is not an element of the multiple-CIMT ground in §237(a)(2)(A)(ii).

Within CIMT five-year rule, this proposition controls the CIMT five-year rule dispute. The clause “The five-year requirement belongs to the single-CIMT ground in INA §237(a)(2)(A)(i)” must be linked to CIMT five-year rule authority before “it is not an element of the multiple-CIMT ground in §237(a)(2)(A)(ii).” is treated as established. Matter of Ortega-Lopez, 27 I&N Dec. 382 (BIA 2018) supplies a published CIMT five-year rule reference for the legal method or qualifier involved.

A CIMT five-year rule record on rule 5 should identify the CIMT five-year rule document proving the conviction, the CIMT five-year rule source proving the legal rule, and the CIMT five-year rule fact that remains disputed. That rule-specific CIMT five-year rule structure keeps allegations from replacing the legally operative CIMT five-year rule requirement.

Cancellation cases use different cross-reference rules: Matter of Ortega-Lopez explains that the five-year temporal language is not necessarily imported into the non-LPR cancellation criminal bar.

Within CIMT five-year rule, this proposition structures the CIMT five-year rule dispute. The clause “Cancellation cases use different cross-reference rules” must be linked to CIMT five-year rule authority before “Matter of Ortega-Lopez explains that the five-year temporal language is not necessarily imported into the non-LPR cancellation criminal bar.” is treated as established. Matter of Carrillo, 25 I&N Dec. 99 (BIA 2009) supplies a published CIMT five-year rule reference for the legal method or qualifier involved.

A CIMT five-year rule record on rule 6 should identify the CIMT five-year rule document proving the conviction, the CIMT five-year rule source proving the legal rule, and the CIMT five-year rule fact that remains disputed. That rule-specific CIMT five-year rule structure keeps allegations from replacing the legally operative CIMT five-year rule requirement.

Proof of the commission date may come from the record of conviction or other reliable evidence depending on the issue; the date must not be inferred from sentencing alone.

Within CIMT five-year rule, this proposition changes the CIMT five-year rule dispute. The clause “Proof of the commission date may come from the record of conviction or other reliable evidence depending on the issue” must be linked to CIMT five-year rule authority before “the date must not be inferred from sentencing alone.” is treated as established. Matter of Alyazji, 25 I&N Dec. 397 (BIA 2011) supplies a published CIMT five-year rule reference for the legal method or qualifier involved.

A CIMT five-year rule record on rule 7 should identify the CIMT five-year rule document proving the conviction, the CIMT five-year rule source proving the legal rule, and the CIMT five-year rule fact that remains disputed. That rule-specific CIMT five-year rule structure keeps allegations from replacing the legally operative CIMT five-year rule requirement.

When DHS pleads the wrong admission date, a respondent should preserve the objection and present the travel and status record that identifies the admission tied to the offense.

Within CIMT five-year rule, this proposition directs the CIMT five-year rule dispute. The clause “When DHS pleads the wrong admission date” must be linked to CIMT five-year rule authority before “a respondent should preserve the objection and present the travel and status record that identifies the admission tied to the offense.” is treated as established. Matter of Ortega-Lopez, 27 I&N Dec. 382 (BIA 2018) supplies a published CIMT five-year rule reference for the legal method or qualifier involved.

A CIMT five-year rule record on rule 8 should identify the CIMT five-year rule document proving the conviction, the CIMT five-year rule source proving the legal rule, and the CIMT five-year rule fact that remains disputed. That rule-specific CIMT five-year rule structure keeps allegations from replacing the legally operative CIMT five-year rule requirement.

Refugee, parole, adjustment, and special statutory admission histories can require separate precedent analysis before selecting the operative date.

Within CIMT five-year rule, this proposition governs the CIMT five-year rule dispute. The clause “Refugee” must be linked to CIMT five-year rule authority before “parole” is treated as established. Matter of Carrillo, 25 I&N Dec. 99 (BIA 2009) supplies a published CIMT five-year rule reference for the legal method or qualifier involved.

A CIMT five-year rule record on rule 9 should identify the CIMT five-year rule document proving the conviction, the CIMT five-year rule source proving the legal rule, and the CIMT five-year rule fact that remains disputed. That rule-specific CIMT five-year rule structure keeps allegations from replacing the legally operative CIMT five-year rule requirement.

The five-year calculation is separate from whether the offense is actually a CIMT under the categorical or modified categorical approach.

Within CIMT five-year rule, this proposition resolves the CIMT five-year rule dispute. The clause “The five-year calculation is separate from whether the offense is” must be linked to CIMT five-year rule authority before “actually a CIMT under the categorical or modified categorical approach.” is treated as established. Matter of Alyazji, 25 I&N Dec. 397 (BIA 2011) supplies a published CIMT five-year rule reference for the legal method or qualifier involved.

A CIMT five-year rule record on rule 10 should identify the CIMT five-year rule document proving the conviction, the CIMT five-year rule source proving the legal rule, and the CIMT five-year rule fact that remains disputed. That rule-specific CIMT five-year rule structure keeps allegations from replacing the legally operative CIMT five-year rule requirement.

Matter of Alyazji, 25 I&N Dec. 397 (BIA 2011) matters to CIMT five-year rule because its holding addresses a CIMT five-year rule component reflected in this rule: Matter of Alyazji rejected the idea that any prior or later admission automatically restarts the five-year clock; the relevant admission is ordinarily the admission by virtue of which the respondent was present when the offense was committed.

Applying Matter of Alyazji, 25 I&N Dec. 397 (BIA 2011) to CIMT five-year rule also requires attention to this separate CIMT five-year rule proposition: The statute measures five years from the date of admission to the date the crime was committed, not the conviction date, plea date, sentencing date, or date DHS issues the Notice to Appear. The CIMT five-year rule brief should use the case for those propositions and avoid extending the CIMT five-year rule holding beyond its procedural posture.

Matter of Ortega-Lopez, 27 I&N Dec. 382 (BIA 2018) matters to CIMT five-year rule because its holding addresses a CIMT five-year rule component reflected in this rule: Adjustment of status can be treated as an admission in some deportability settings, but the Alyazji analysis requires attention to whether that adjustment is the admission connected to the period of presence during which the offense occurred.

Applying Matter of Ortega-Lopez, 27 I&N Dec. 382 (BIA 2018) to CIMT five-year rule also requires attention to this separate CIMT five-year rule proposition: A later departure and readmission can create a new period of admitted presence; counsel should chart every entry, admission class, adjustment, and departure rather than assume the oldest admission controls. The CIMT five-year rule brief should use the case for those propositions and avoid extending the CIMT five-year rule holding beyond its procedural posture.

Matter of Carrillo, 25 I&N Dec. 99 (BIA 2009) matters to CIMT five-year rule because its holding addresses a CIMT five-year rule component reflected in this rule: The five-year requirement belongs to the single-CIMT ground in INA §237(a)(2)(A)(i); it is not an element of the multiple-CIMT ground in §237(a)(2)(A)(ii).

Applying Matter of Carrillo, 25 I&N Dec. 99 (BIA 2009) to CIMT five-year rule also requires attention to this separate CIMT five-year rule proposition: Cancellation cases use different cross-reference rules: Matter of Ortega-Lopez explains that the five-year temporal language is not necessarily imported into the non-LPR cancellation criminal bar. The CIMT five-year rule brief should use the case for those propositions and avoid extending the CIMT five-year rule holding beyond its procedural posture.

A CIMT five-year rule file should integrate three distinct CIMT five-year rule propositions. First: Matter of Alyazji rejected the idea that any prior or later admission automatically restarts the five-year clock; the relevant admission is ordinarily the admission by virtue of which the respondent was present when the offense was committed. Second: A later departure and readmission can create a new period of admitted presence; counsel should chart every entry, admission class, adjustment, and departure rather than assume the oldest admission controls. Third: Proof of the commission date may come from the record of conviction or other reliable evidence depending on the issue; the date must not be inferred from sentencing alone.

Those CIMT five-year rule propositions determine the CIMT five-year rule documents worth collecting. Certified records should prove CIMT five-year rule elements and sentence; historical materials should prove CIMT five-year rule timing when timing matters; broader proof should be reserved for a circumstance-specific CIMT five-year rule qualifier. The final CIMT five-year rule brief should assign each CIMT five-year rule burden and request a precise CIMT five-year rule ruling.

A CIMT five-year rule file should integrate three distinct CIMT five-year rule propositions. First: The statute measures five years from the date of admission to the date the crime was committed, not the conviction date, plea date, sentencing date, or date DHS issues the Notice to Appear. Second: The five-year requirement belongs to the single-CIMT ground in INA §237(a)(2)(A)(i); it is not an element of the multiple-CIMT ground in §237(a)(2)(A)(ii). Third: When DHS pleads the wrong admission date, a respondent should preserve the objection and present the travel and status record that identifies the admission tied to the offense.

Those CIMT five-year rule propositions determine the CIMT five-year rule documents worth collecting. Certified records should prove CIMT five-year rule elements and sentence; historical materials should prove CIMT five-year rule timing when timing matters; broader proof should be reserved for a circumstance-specific CIMT five-year rule qualifier. The final CIMT five-year rule brief should assign each CIMT five-year rule burden and request a precise CIMT five-year rule ruling.

A CIMT five-year rule file should integrate three distinct CIMT five-year rule propositions. First: Adjustment of status can be treated as an admission in some deportability settings, but the Alyazji analysis requires attention to whether that adjustment is the admission connected to the period of presence during which the offense occurred. Second: Cancellation cases use different cross-reference rules: Matter of Ortega-Lopez explains that the five-year temporal language is not necessarily imported into the non-LPR cancellation criminal bar. Third: Refugee, parole, adjustment, and special statutory admission histories can require separate precedent analysis before selecting the operative date.

Those CIMT five-year rule propositions determine the CIMT five-year rule documents worth collecting. Certified records should prove CIMT five-year rule elements and sentence; historical materials should prove CIMT five-year rule timing when timing matters; broader proof should be reserved for a circumstance-specific CIMT five-year rule qualifier. The final CIMT five-year rule brief should assign each CIMT five-year rule burden and request a precise CIMT five-year rule ruling.

A CIMT five-year rule file should integrate three distinct CIMT five-year rule propositions. First: A later departure and readmission can create a new period of admitted presence; counsel should chart every entry, admission class, adjustment, and departure rather than assume the oldest admission controls. Second: Proof of the commission date may come from the record of conviction or other reliable evidence depending on the issue; the date must not be inferred from sentencing alone. Third: The five-year calculation is separate from whether the offense is actually a CIMT under the categorical or modified categorical approach.

Those CIMT five-year rule propositions determine the CIMT five-year rule documents worth collecting. Certified records should prove CIMT five-year rule elements and sentence; historical materials should prove CIMT five-year rule timing when timing matters; broader proof should be reserved for a circumstance-specific CIMT five-year rule qualifier. The final CIMT five-year rule brief should assign each CIMT five-year rule burden and request a precise CIMT five-year rule ruling.

A CIMT five-year rule file should integrate three distinct CIMT five-year rule propositions. First: Matter of Alyazji rejected the idea that any prior or later admission automatically restarts the five-year clock; the relevant admission is ordinarily the admission by virtue of which the respondent was present when the offense was committed. Second: Cancellation cases use different cross-reference rules: Matter of Ortega-Lopez explains that the five-year temporal language is not necessarily imported into the non-LPR cancellation criminal bar. Third: The five-year calculation is separate from whether the offense is actually a CIMT under the categorical or modified categorical approach.

Those CIMT five-year rule propositions determine the CIMT five-year rule documents worth collecting. Certified records should prove CIMT five-year rule elements and sentence; historical materials should prove CIMT five-year rule timing when timing matters; broader proof should be reserved for a circumstance-specific CIMT five-year rule qualifier. The final CIMT five-year rule brief should assign each CIMT five-year rule burden and request a precise CIMT five-year rule ruling.