Short answer: whether a record exists is not what decides this. The question is whether a written category applies, and whether what happened is a conviction as the immigration laws define that word. The second question is wider than the word sounds. Nothing here settles whether an application is the right step. This article is about applications made inside the United States. As of September 2026.
Does this apply to me? Free eligibility check →About 5 minutes. An email address is needed to see your result.
What the list actually names
The paragraph names several categories. Two of them are set out here first; the rest are listed further down.
The first reaches a person convicted of, or who admits having committed, or who admits committing acts which constitute the essential elements of a crime involving moral turpitude — other than a purely political offense — or an attempt or conspiracy to commit one. The opening words matter: this category is not written only about convictions.
The second sits under the same opening words — convicted of, or admitting, in the two forms above — and it covers a violation of, or a conspiracy or attempt to violate, any law or regulation of a State, the United States, or a foreign country relating to a controlled substance, as that term is defined in the federal drug laws.
The statute uses the phrase "crime involving moral turpitude" and does not define it in the definitions section of the immigration laws. The same is true of "purely political offense". What the words do and do not settle is therefore a question about the text, not about the name of an offense.
The exception, and what it does not reach
One exception is written into that first category, and it applies only to a person who committed only one crime. It has two forms.
- The crime was committed when the person was under 18, and the crime was committed — and the person released from any confinement to a prison or correctional institution imposed for that crime — more than five years before the dates the statute names: the date of application for a visa or other documentation, and the date of application for admission.
- The maximum penalty possible for the crime did not exceed imprisonment for one year, and, if the person was convicted, they were not sentenced to a term of imprisonment in excess of six months — regardless of the extent to which the sentence was ultimately executed.
Two things sit inside that second form. It measures the maximum the law allowed for the offense, not the fine that was paid. And it looks at the sentence ordered, not the part that was served.
Then there is the limit on the exception itself. By its own words it applies to the moral turpitude clause. It does not apply to the controlled substance clause.
Two more categories, each written differently
A separate provision reaches a person convicted of two or more offenses — other than purely political offenses — regardless of whether the convictions came in a single trial, whether the offenses arose from a single scheme, and regardless of whether the offenses involved moral turpitude, where the aggregate sentences to confinement were five years or more. That one is written around convictions, and it adds sentences together.
The trafficking provision is written the other way. It reaches a person whom the consular officer or the Attorney General knows or has reason to believe is or has been an illicit trafficker in a controlled substance or a listed chemical — or a knowing aider, abettor, assister, conspirator or colluder in that trafficking, or who endeavored to do so. There is no conviction requirement in those words. A separate clause reaches the spouse, son or daughter of such a person who obtained a financial or other benefit from that activity within the previous five years and knew or reasonably should have known that the benefit was the product of that illicit activity.
The same paragraph also names prostitution and commercialized vice, certain serious offenses where immunity from prosecution was asserted, foreign officials responsible for particularly severe violations of religious freedom, significant traffickers in persons, and money laundering.
The definition that does the work
The immigration laws define conviction. It is a formal judgment of guilt entered by a court — or, if adjudication of guilt has been withheld, a case where both of these are true:
- a judge or jury found the person guilty, or the person pleaded guilty or nolo contendere, or admitted sufficient facts to warrant a finding of guilt; and
- the judge ordered some form of punishment, penalty, or restraint on the person's liberty.
A second sentence goes with it. Any reference to a term of imprisonment or a sentence includes the period of incarceration or confinement ordered by the court regardless of any suspension of the imposition or execution of that sentence, in whole or in part.
So a disposition that ended without a formal judgment of guilt can still be a conviction under this definition, and a sentence that was suspended still counts as a sentence.
Where the waiver is written, and where it stops
There is a waiver, and its shape is specific. It is discretionary. It reaches the moral turpitude category, the two-or-more-convictions category, the prostitution category and the immunity category — and it reaches the controlled substance category only insofar as it relates to a single offense of simple possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana.
It runs through one of three routes. The first is for an immigrant who is inadmissible only under two named clauses of the prostitution category, or whose activities occurred more than fifteen years before the application, where admission would not be contrary to the national welfare, safety, or security and the person has been rehabilitated. The second is for an immigrant who is the spouse, parent, son, or daughter of a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident, where denial of admission would result in extreme hardship to that citizen or lawfully resident spouse, parent, son, or daughter. The third is for a VAWA self-petitioner. All of them also require the government's consent to the person applying or reapplying.
The family circle in that second route is wider than the one written into the general route of the waiver for the misrepresentation ground, where the hardship side names a spouse or parent. Here a son or daughter appears on the hardship side as well.
Three limits are written into the same subsection. No waiver is provided for a person convicted of — or who has admitted committing acts that constitute — murder or criminal acts involving torture, or an attempt or conspiracy to commit either. No waiver is granted to a person previously admitted as a lawful permanent resident if, since that admission, they were convicted of an aggravated felony, or if they have not lawfully resided continuously in the United States for at least seven years immediately preceding the initiation of removal proceedings. And no court has jurisdiction to review a decision to grant or deny a waiver under that subsection — while another provision of the immigration laws preserves review of constitutional claims and questions of law raised in a petition for review filed with a court of appeals under that section.
Why this comes up at the green card stage
Adjustment of status requires that the applicant is eligible to receive an immigrant visa and is admissible to the United States for permanent residence. That is a requirement of the application itself, which is why the categories above are read at this stage and not only at a border.
Where the answer splits
- Whether the matter is a crime at all, and whether the record is a conviction as the immigration laws define that word — not as the paperwork labels it.
- Which of these clauses it falls under, if either. The moral turpitude clause and the controlled substance clause are written separately, and the paragraph names other categories besides them.
- How many offenses there are, and what the court ordered. The exception is written for a person who committed only one crime, and one category adds sentences together.
- Whether a waiver is written for that category at all, and what the route being used requires — the family relationship is a condition of one of the three routes, not of all of them.
What does not change the rules
- What the disposition is called. The definition looks at what the court did.
- That the sentence was suspended. The statute says a term of imprisonment includes what the court ordered regardless of suspension.
- That the fine was small. One form of the exception measures the maximum penalty the law allowed, and separately limits the sentence the court ordered. A paid fine answers neither of those on its own.
- That there was no conviction, for some of this. The first category is also written about admissions, and the trafficking clause is written without a conviction requirement.
FAQ
I paid a ticket by mail. Is that a conviction? The immigration laws define a conviction as a formal judgment of guilt, or a withheld adjudication where the person was found guilty, pleaded guilty or nolo contendere, or admitted sufficient facts — and a judge ordered some punishment, penalty, or restraint on liberty. Whether a particular record meets that definition is a question about that record.
The case was dismissed. Does that end it? For the categories written around convictions, a conviction is what they name. But the first category is also written to reach a person who admits having committed the crime, or who admits committing acts which constitute its essential elements — and the trafficking clause is written without a conviction requirement at all.
Is a DUI a crime involving moral turpitude? The statute uses that phrase and does not define it in the definitions section of the immigration laws. This article does not answer it for any named offense.
Is there a waiver? For several of these categories there is one, and it is discretionary. It reaches the controlled substance category only for a single offense of simple possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana, and the statute provides no waiver under that subsection for murder or for criminal acts involving torture.
General information only — not legal advice for your case. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Free eligibility checkServices & pricing
Cho & Associates (Law Office of Jin D. Cho, P.C.) · 35-24 154th St., Flushing, NY 11354 · jd@choattorneys.com