If the defendant violated any of the conditions of probation, FFOA treatment would not have been available.  Therefore, an expungement will not eliminate the conviction even where the defendant otherwise qualifies for Lujan treatment.[26]

[26] Estrada v. Holder, 560 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir. Mar. 26, 2009) (a noncitizen whose state conviction for possession of drug paraphernalia was expunged under state law, but who violated the terms of his probation before expungement was granted, would not have been eligible for relief under the Federal First Offender Act (FFOA), 18 U.S.C. § 3607(a), since the FFOA expressly limits relief to cases where “the person has not violated a condition of his probation”; state expungement therefore did not eliminate the conviction for immigration purposes).

Ninth Circuit

POST CON RELIEF -- STATE REHABILITATIVE RELIEF " CONVICTION EXPUNGED UNDER STATE LAW CONTINUED TO EXIST BECAUSE DEFENDANT VIOLATED PROBATION AND WOULD THUS NOT HAVE BEEN ELIGIBLE TO OBTAIN FEDERAL FIRST OFFENDER ACT EXPUNGEMENT
Estrada v. Holder, 560 F.3d 1039, 2009 WL 779757 (9th Cir. March 26, 2009)(a noncitizen whose state conviction for possession of drug paraphernalia was expunged under state law, but who violated the terms of his probation before expungement was granted, would not have been eligible for relief under the Federal First Offender Act (FFOA), 18 U.S.C. 3607(a), since the FFOA expressly limits relief to cases where the person has not violated a condition of his probation, and the state expungement therefore did not eliminate the conviction for immigration purposes, so the BIA did not err in denying adjustment of status to lawful permanent residence on the basis that the person was inadmissible under INA 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) on account of the controlled substances conviction).