Crime Involving Moral Turpitude (CIMT): Exceptions & Waivers

INA 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) covers a conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT), an attempted or conspired CIMT, or a legally valid admission to committing its essential elements. The statutory exceptions must be evaluated first. A criminal arrest by itself is not a CIMT conviction.

A CIMT generally involves reprehensible conduct coupled with a culpable mental state, such as certain theft, fraud or intentional violent offenses. The exact elements of the governing criminal statute, relevant judicial interpretations, and where permitted the record of conviction determine the answer; offense labels alone do not.

No. First determine whether an immigration-law conviction or valid admission exists, whether the offense categorically qualifies as a CIMT, and whether the single-offense minor or petty-offense exception applies. Multiple distinct grounds can also require analysis.

INA 212(a)(2)(A)(ii)(II) generally removes this CIMT ground for only one crime if the maximum legally possible imprisonment is no more than one year and, if convicted, the sentence imposed was not more than six months, regardless of the portion actually served. Suspended incarceration may still count as a sentence imposed.

INA 212(a)(2)(A)(ii)(I) generally requires only one crime, commission before age 18, and both commission of the crime and release from any resulting confinement more than five years before the relevant visa/documentation and admission applications. Juvenile delinquency that is not an immigration-law conviction raises a separate question.

A simple DUI statute ordinarily does not constitute a CIMT solely because it criminalizes impaired driving. Different elements, such as knowingly driving while prohibited or other culpable aggravating factors, can change the analysis. DUI can independently raise medical or other immigration issues.

Yes, but only when there is a legally sufficient admission to committing the essential elements of a qualifying CIMT or acts constituting those elements. A vague statement, arrest allegation, or admission missing required procedural and substantive safeguards does not automatically establish the ground.

Not necessarily. INA 101(a)(48)(A) has its own conviction definition; some withheld adjudications and pleas with punishment or restraint still qualify. Post-conviction relief based on substantive or procedural defect can have different immigration consequences from rehabilitative expungement. Review the actual order and governing law.

Obtain the version of the criminal statute in force, certified complaint or information, plea agreement, plea colloquy, judgment, sentencing order, disposition, record of any vacatur, and any relevant immigration refusal notice. The precise maximum potential punishment and sentence imposed determine whether the petty-offense exception applies.

Yes, for eligible immigrants under INA 212(h), subject to a qualifying route, statutory exclusions, and favorable discretion. Eligible temporary visa applicants may request an INA 212(d)(3)(A) waiver through the appropriate consular and DHS process. A statutory exception or correct finding of no CIMT may make a waiver unnecessary.

No. Misdemeanor status does not determine whether a crime is a CIMT or the applicability of the petty-offense exception. The legal elements, maximum authorized imprisonment, imposed sentence, and any other offenses matter.

The relevant measure is the sentence to imprisonment imposed, including incarceration ordered but suspended under INA 101(a)(48)(B). Time actually served can be shorter than the imposed sentence, so obtain the certified sentencing order.

Yes. Potential bases include no qualifying immigration-law conviction or admission, a non-CIMT statute under the categorical approach, the petty-offense or under-18 exception, or an error about the criminal record. The correct remedy depends on whether the decision was made by USCIS, CBP, or a consulate.

The analysis usually compares the elements of the offense of conviction with the generic CIMT definition, not an independent account of alleged facts. For a legally divisible statute, the modified categorical approach can identify the convicted statutory alternative using permitted conviction records. Consular treatment of foreign laws and separate admissions requires special analysis.

Under INA 212(h)(1)(A), the conduct causing inadmissibility must have occurred more than 15 years before the application for a visa, admission, or adjustment; admission must not be contrary to US national welfare, safety or security; and rehabilitation must be established. This route does not require a US citizen or LPR relative or a statutory extreme-hardship showing, but favorable discretion remains necessary.

Under INA 212(h)(1)(B), an eligible immigrant spouse, parent, son or daughter of a US citizen or lawful permanent resident must demonstrate extreme hardship from denial of admission to a qualifying US citizen or LPR spouse, parent, son or daughter. The applicant’s own hardship alone is not the statutory test. A waiver is discretionary.

Yes. INA 212(h)(1)(C) provides a distinct eligibility route for a VAWA self-petitioner. The applicant must also meet the applicable statutory restrictions and establish favorable discretion; do not assume that the usual family-member extreme-hardship test applies to that route.

INA 212(h) expressly bars a waiver for murder, acts constituting criminal torture, and an attempt or conspiracy to commit murder or criminal torture. Certain applicants previously admitted as permanent residents also face an aggravated-felony bar and a seven-year lawful-residence limitation. If none of the statutory routes is satisfied, no ordinary INA 212(h) waiver is available.

The aggravated-felony restriction in the text of INA 212(h) applies to a person previously admitted to the US as a lawful permanent resident, with jurisdiction-dependent questions regarding initial admission versus later adjustment of status. Other immigration consequences of aggravated felonies may independently prevent adjustment or relief. Do not assume it applies identically to every immigrant applicant.

8 CFR 212.7(d) imposes an especially restrictive discretionary standard for INA 212(h) applicants involved in violent or dangerous crimes. Favorable discretion generally requires extraordinary circumstances, such as exceptional and extremely unusual hardship or certain national security or foreign-policy considerations; even these may be insufficient.

Yes. INA 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) is not among the excluded grounds under the general INA 212(d)(3)(A) waiver. The applicant must otherwise qualify for the nonimmigrant visa, secure an appropriate favorable consular or State Department recommendation, and obtain DHS authorization. There is no general qualifying-relative or extreme-hardship requirement.

Generally no. Ordinary consular nonimmigrant applicants seek an INA 212(d)(3)(A) recommendation through the consular process, with DHS/CBP waiver authorization. Form I-192 is used in certain direct DHS/CBP processes, not as a routine replacement for the consular recommendation. Form I-601 generally pertains to immigrant or adjustment waiver processes.

No. A nonimmigrant inadmissibility waiver does not establish eligibility for the underlying visa. A separate refusal for failure to qualify under INA 214(b) must be resolved on its own terms.

A strong file includes certified conviction records, the correct statute and punishment ranges, proof of eligibility under the 15-year, family-hardship or VAWA route, rehabilitation evidence, and a discretionary equities presentation. For a hardship case, document concrete physical, financial, psychological and family consequences to eligible relatives.

Obtain the exact statutory citation, certified criminal records and any written refusal or denial; determine whether the CIMT ground legally applies and whether a petty or minor exception eliminates it. Only then evaluate INA 212(h) or 212(d)(3)(A) and other possible independent grounds of inadmissibility.