Opinion ID: 774129
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Certificate of Relief

Text: 39 Mugalli also argues that his conviction for third-degree rape has been effectively expunged by the Certificate of Relief issued to him by the sentencing court. The issue raised by Mugalli's argument is whether a state court criminal proceeding has produced a conviction for immigration law purposes where the state court has mitigated the formal judgment of conviction on the basis of a state rehabilitation statute. 40 As support for his argument, Mugalli relies principally on Rehman v. INS, 544 F.2d 71 (2d Cir. 1976), in which the petitioner received a Certificate of Relief. We held: 41 If the word conviction is to be construed rigidly, [petitioner] must be deported since his New York conviction still stands under New York law. We think, however, that a less formalistic approach is appropriate and more consistent with Congressional intent. So far as any automatic collateral consequences are concerned, [petitioner] has not been convicted under New York law. 12 42 Id. at 74 (footnote added). 43 At the time Rehman was decided, there was no federal statutory definition of conviction for deportation purposes. The term was therefore defined by courts on a case by case basis. The result was confusion. See Lujan-Armendariz v. INS, 222 F.3d 728, 736 (9th Cir. 2000). Since Rehman, however, the INA has been amended and now provides a federal definition of conviction: 44 The term conviction means, with respect to an alien, a formal judgment of guilt of the alien entered by a court or, if adjudication of guilt has been withheld, where- 45 (i) a judge or jury has found the alien guilty or the alien has entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere or has admitted sufficient facts to warrant a finding of guilt, and 46 (ii) the judge has ordered some form of punishment, penalty, or restraint on the alien's liberty to be imposed. 47 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(48)(A); see Lujan-Armendariz, 222 F.3d at 736 (noting that the new definition of conviction adopted by Congress in 1996 represents a Congressional attempt to clear up the general confusion over when a conviction exists for immigration purposes). Here, Mugalli entered a plea of guilty, and the court entered a formal judgment of guilt. Under New York law, even though a Certificate of Relief is designed to mitigate the consequences of that conviction, it does not eradicate or expunge the underlying conviction. Morrisette v. Dilworth, 59 N.Y.2d 449, 451 n.2, 452 N.E.2d 1222, 1223 n.2, 465 N.Y.S.2d 894, 895 n.2 (1983). Thus, based on the BIA's reasonable conclusion as to the meaning of conviction and our understanding of the significance of the Certificate of Relief under New York law, the Certificate of Relief does not immunize him from the deportation consequences of that conviction.