(A)  In General.  A conviction rendered in absentia, without adequate notice to the defendant, will not trigger deportation.[301]  The failure to attend trial where notice and an opportunity to be present were provided, however, will not preclude the use of a conviction rendered in absentia.[302] 

 

[301] Ex parte Koerner, 176 Fed. 478 (E.D. Wash. 1909); Ex parte Watchorn, 160 Fed. 1014 (S.D.N.Y. 1908); Matter of Piraino, 12 I. & N. Dec. 508 (BIA 1967) (Italian); 22 C.F.R.

§ 40.21(a)(4).

[302] Weinbrand v. Prentis, 4 F.2d 778 (6th Cir. 1925) (conviction held valid when testimony was taken in the absence of the respondent, who had been given notice and an opportunity to be present); Matter of Romandia-Herreros, 11 I. & N. Dec. 772 (BIA 1966) (Mexican narcotics conviction not considered in absentia when court had personal jurisdiction over defendant, even though he was prosecuted in a foreign country for an offense committed in the United States); Matter of VDB, 8 I. & N. Dec. 608 (BIA 1960) (conviction considered valid, though defendant was not present, where he had notice of the proceeding, appeared in court after its conclusion, failed to appeal, and paid the fine).

Ninth Circuit

CONVICTION - JUVENILE
United States v. Jose D.L., __ F.3d __ (9th Cir. Jun. 30, 2006) (district court finding that defendant was a juvenile delinquent for drug-related offenses reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings as to "harmless error" analysis where government officials committed multiple violations of the Juvenile Delinquency Act (JDA)). http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0550597p.pdf