A conviction that is vacated on a ground of legal invalidity cannot trigger deportability under the domestic violence ground.  See Chapter 11, supra.[55]  A presidential or gubernatorial pardon, however, which will eliminate a crime involving moral turpitude or aggravated felony conviction for immigration purposes, will not perform that function with respect to a domestic violence conviction because the DV ground of deportation is not listed in the pardon statute.  See § 11.22, supra.[56]  “State rehabilitative relief,” such as an expungement or dismissal under statutes such as California Penal Code § 1203.4, will not be effective to eliminate the conviction.  See § 11.18, supra.[57]

[55] Matter of Pickering, 23 I. & N. Dec. 621 (BIA 2003), rev’d on other grounds, Pickering v. Gonzales, ­454 F.3d 525, 527 (6th Cir. July 17, 2006).

[56] Matter of Suh, 23 I. & N. Dec. 626 (BIA 2003) (presidential or gubernatorial pardon waives only the grounds of removal specifically set forth in INA § 237(a)(2)(A)(vi), 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(vi) (2000), and no implicit waivers may be read into the statute, so the respondent’s pardon did not waive removability for a conviction of a crime of domestic violence or child abuse under INA § 237(a)(2)(E)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i), because that section is not specifically included in INA § 237(a)(2)(A)(vi), 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(vi).

[57] Murillo-Espinoza v. INS, 261 F.3d 771 (9th Cir. 2001).

SAFE HAVENS " DOMESTIC VIOLENCE " VIOLATION OF PROTECTION ORDER
Matter of Strydom, 25 I. & N. Dec. 507 (BIA May 24, 2011) (We recognize that not all aspects of a protection order will trigger section 237(a)(2)(E)(ii). The Ninth Circuit noted that provisions requiring attendance at and payment for a counseling program or requiring the payment of costs for supervision during parenting time will not be covered by section 237(a)(2)(E)(ii).); quoting Szalai v. Holder, 572 F.3d 975, 980 (9th Cir. 2009).

BIA

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE " VIOLATION OF PROTECTION ORDER
Matter of Strydom, 25 I. & N. Dec. 507 (BIA May 24, 2011) (Kansas conviction for violation of a temporary protection order issued pursuant to Kansas Protection from Abuse Act 60-3106, in violation of Kan. Stats. 21-3843(a)(1), does not categorically constitute a deportable offense under section INA 237(a)(2)(E)(ii), because the statute of conviction includes violations of non-DV restraining orders such as Kan. Stat. 60-1607 which pertains to orders involving the disposition of property pending final judgment on a petition for divorce).

SAFE HAVENS " DOMESTIC VIOLENCE " VIOLATION OF PROTECTION ORDER
Matter of Strydom, 25 I. & N. Dec. 507 (BIA May 24, 2011) (We recognize that not all aspects of a protection order will trigger section 237(a)(2)(E)(ii). The Ninth Circuit noted that provisions requiring attendance at and payment for a counseling program or requiring the payment of costs for supervision during parenting time will not be covered by section 237(a)(2)(E)(ii).); quoting Szalai v. Holder, 572 F.3d 975, 980 (9th Cir. 2009).

Eighth Circuit

CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES " STATE REHABILITATIVE RELIEF " FEDERAL FIRST OFFENDER ACT POST CON RELIEF " REHABILITATIVE RELIEF " STATE REHABILITATIVE RELIEF " FEDERAL FIRST OFFENDER ACT
Brikova v. Holder, 699 F.3d 1005 (8th Cir. Nov. 7, 2012) (Minnesota conviction of possession of cocaine, for which defendant would have been eligible for Federal First Offender Act treatment, under 18 U.S.C. 3607(a), was not eliminated for immigration purposes by state rehabilitative relief, since equal protection challenge fails because there are multiple potential rational bases for distinguishing between federal and state defendants).