Normally the grant of former INA § 212(c) relief waives all grounds of deportation for that crime so that the conviction no longer has any adverse immigration effects.  There is, however, a different rule for crimes of moral turpitude: even if § 212(c) relief is granted, the DHS may join a conviction for a crime of moral turpitude that has been waived with another that has not, to charge deportability for conviction of two CMT offenses.[1070] 

 

            Therefore, a noncitizen who received a waiver of deportation[1071] for a particular crime involving moral turpitude may still thereafter be deported under the multiple-CMT conviction ground of deportation, if s/he is later convicted of a second CMT or another CMT conviction is discovered that was not disclosed or waived in the prior proceeding.[1072]

[1070] Molina-Amecua v. INS, 6 F.3d 646 (9th Cir. 1993).

[1071] Former INA § 212(c), 8 U. S. C. § 1182(c).

[1072] Matter of Balderas, 20 I. & N. Dec. 389 (BIA 1991) (INA § 212(c), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) waiver did not eliminate the fact that the first conviction had occurred, and that conviction could provide one conviction to support a two-conviction ground for deportation); Matter of Mascoro-Perales, 12 I. & N. Dec. 228 (BIA 1967) (same; deportability previously waived for single conviction did not prevent deportation for multiple CMTs using the waived conviction as one).

Ninth Circuit

CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES - PAULUS - RELIEF
Esquivel-Garcia v. Holder, 593 F.3d 1025 (9th Cir. Jan. 28, 2010) (California statute proscribing possession of certain controlled substances, Health & Safety Code 11350, proscribes more substances than the disqualifying offense, so the court presumes the statute is categorically overbroad with respect to the controlled substances ground of inadmissibility, INA 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II), and cannot categorically disqualify the respondent from eligibility for cancellation of removal); see Suazo Perez v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1222, 1225 (9th Cir. 2008).

CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES - PAULUS - INADMISSIBILITY
Esquivel-Garcia v. Holder, 593 F.3d 1025 (9th Cir. Jan. 28, 2010) (testimony before IJ that conviction involved a federally listed controlled substance sufficient to establish inadmissibility under INA 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II), admitting commission of a controlled substances offense).

NOTE: This decision was not well considered. The court did not consider the effect of Matter of Winter, 12 I. & N. Dec. 638, 642 (BIA 1967, 1968) ("the plea to an indictment or complaint is so much an integral part of the entire criminal proceeding that it cannot be isolated from the final result of that proceeding, and given more force or finality than that result"), and related cases. The court also did not address the issue of whether the "admission" was properly taken by the Immigration Judge. See Matter of K, 7 I. & N. Dec. 594, 597 (BIA 1957).