Skip to main content

CALCANO DE MILLAN

BIAJuly 1, 2017No. ID 3884Cited 3 times
Defendant WinCALCANO DE MILLAN

Case Details

Status
Published
Procedural Posture
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

The Board of Immigration Appeals upheld the denial of the visa petition, finding that the petitioner's 2001 sexual battery conviction constitutes a 'specified offense against a minor' under the Adam Walsh Act, and that post-conviction relief under California Penal Code section 1203.4 does not negate the conviction for immigration purposes.

Excerpt

CALCANO DE MILLAN, 26 I&N Dec. 904 (BIA 2017) For purposes of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-248, 120 Stat. 587, and section 204(a)(1)(A)(viii)(I) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1154(a)(1)(A)(viii)(I) (2012), a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident petitioner has been "convicted" of an offense where either a formal judgment of guilt has been entered by a court or, if adjudication of guilt has been withheld, where (1) a plea, finding, or admission of facts established the petitioner's guilt and (2) a judge ordered some form of punishment, penalty, or restraint on his or her liberty.

What This Ruling Means

# Calcano de Millan Case Summary **What Happened** A U.S. citizen or permanent resident filed to bring a family member to the United States through a visa petition. However, the petitioner had a 2001 sexual battery conviction on their record. The immigration authorities denied the petition based on this conviction and federal law protecting children. **What the Court Decided** The Board of Immigration Appeals (a federal court) sided with immigration authorities. The court ruled that even though the petitioner had received post-conviction relief under California law (which typically reduces or clears certain convictions), this relief does not erase the conviction for immigration purposes. The conviction still counts as a serious offense under federal child protection law, making the petitioner ineligible to sponsor a family member's visa. **Why This Matters** This case shows that immigration law operates differently from regular criminal law. Workers should understand that obtaining relief from a criminal conviction in state court doesn't automatically remove it for immigration consequences. Anyone with a criminal record seeking to sponsor family members for visas should consult an immigration attorney, as convictions can have lasting effects on immigration eligibility beyond criminal penalties.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.