Travel after a plea
A permanent resident who comes home from a trip is normally not treated as seeking admission. INA 101(a)(13)(C) lists six things that change that, and the fifth is having committed an offense identified in INA 212(a)(2). A resident with a crime involving moral turpitude or a drug offense on the record who leaves the country comes back as an applicant for admission, tested against the inadmissibility list, with the burden reversed and no marijuana exception on the drug ground. The rule turns on commission, not conviction, and it does not apply to a conviction from before April 1, 1997.
Current as of October 2026. We re-check this page regularly and after any rule change.
Most pages on this site are about what a plea does inside the country. This one is about the border, where the list changes. A resident who has been living on the deportability list, with the government carrying the burden, can walk up to a Customs and Border Protection officer and find that the inadmissibility list applies instead, with the burden on the resident. The trigger is a single clause in the definition of admission, and it turns on the offense, not the plea. This page goes through the clause, the exception for old convictions, what the inadmissibility list means at the port, the waiver route back, and what to ask us if you are not a resident. The grounds themselves are on the crimes and removal page, and the relief that survives a conviction is on after a plea.
The rule for residents: INA 101(a)(13)(C)
A lawful permanent resident returning from abroad is not regarded as seeking an admission unless one of six circumstances listed in INA 101(a)(13)(C)(i) through (vi) is true. The one this site is about is the fifth: the resident "has committed an offense identified in section 212(a)(2)," unless since then the resident has been granted a 212(h) waiver or cancellation of removal under 240A(a). The other five concern the resident's status and the circumstances of the departure and return rather than a criminal record. Ask about them at the consultation if your trip was long or your status has been questioned.
Committed, not convicted
The clause says "committed." A resident who has committed a 212(a)(2) offense is within it whether or not a plea has been entered, and a plea entered later does not move the date. Under Barton v. Barr, 590 U.S. 222 (2020), decided under the related stop-time rule, an offense "renders" a resident inadmissible under 212(a)(2) even though a resident is not seeking admission, and the same offense becomes the reason the resident is seeking admission on return. What the plea can change is whether the offense of conviction is a 212(a)(2) offense at all. A CIMT with a one-year maximum and a sentence of six months or less is inside the petty offense exception and is not a 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) offense. A drug offense is on the list whatever the amount. A firearms offense, on its own, is not, because the inadmissibility list has no firearms ground.
The exception for old convictions
Under Vartelas v. Holder, 566 U.S. 257 (2012), 101(a)(13)(C)(v) does not apply to a resident whose conviction predates April 1, 1997, the effective date of the 1996 law that wrote the clause. For those residents, the earlier standard from Fleuti governs: a brief, casual and innocent trip abroad is not a departure that exposes the resident to the inadmissibility grounds on return. A resident with a 1995 plea and no later record is in a different position from a resident with a 1998 plea, and the difference is the date of the conviction.
The two grants that lift the clause
A resident who has been granted 212(h) or 240A(a) cancellation since the offense is outside (v). The cancellation grant requires five years as a resident, seven years of continuous residence after admission in any status, and no aggravated felony, INA 240A(a), and the seven years stop at the commission of the offense under INA 240A(d)(1) and Matter of Perez, 22 I&N Dec. 689 (BIA 1999). A resident who has already been through removal proceedings and won cancellation can travel on that grant; a resident who has not should not assume it would be available at the port.
What seeking admission means at the port
Three things change. The list changes from INA 237(a)(2) to INA 212(a)(2). The burden changes: an applicant for admission must show clearly and beyond doubt that they are entitled to be admitted. INA 240(c)(2); 8 C.F.R. 1240.8(b), (c). And detention changes: a person inadmissible under 212(a)(2) is subject to mandatory detention under INA 236(c)(1)(A), with no bond hearing before the immigration judge.
| Ground | What it takes at the port | Authority |
|---|---|---|
| Crime involving moral turpitude | A conviction, or an admission of the essential elements, whenever committed; one offense excepted where the maximum possible penalty did not exceed one year and any sentence imposed did not exceed six months | INA 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I), (ii)(II) |
| Controlled substance | A conviction of, or an admission of, a violation of any law relating to a federally controlled substance. No marijuana exception, no petty offense exception | INA 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) |
| Multiple convictions | Two or more, with aggregate sentences to confinement of five years or more | INA 212(a)(2)(B) |
| Reason to believe drug trafficker | No conviction required | INA 212(a)(2)(C) |
| Prostitution and commercialized vice | Within ten years | INA 212(a)(2)(D) |
| Firearms | No ground. A firearms conviction by itself does not make a resident inadmissible, and there is nothing in 212(a)(2) for it to trigger | INA 212(a)(2); compare INA 237(a)(2)(C) |
The drug row is the one that catches residents. A single possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana for your own use is excepted from the deportability ground, INA 237(a)(2)(B)(i), so a resident with that one conviction who stays home is not deportable for it. The same resident who travels is tested against 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II), which has no exception, and needs the 212(h) waiver, which reaches that offense and no other drug offense. A conviction for possession of any other federally controlled substance, or of a larger amount, is on the list. Do not count on a waiver for it; ask us. Under Mellouli v. Lynch, 575 U.S. 798 (2015), the substance has to be on the federal schedules, and marijuana still is. 21 U.S.C. 812.
The admission row matters at the port in a way it does not at home. INA 212(a)(2)(A)(i) reaches a person who admits committing a CIMT or a drug offense, or admits its essential elements, without a conviction. A plea colloquy in a case later dismissed, or an answer to an officer's question, can be that admission. The record of conviction page explains what the documents in your file will say. And under Pereida v. Wilkinson, 592 U.S. 224 (2021), a person who carries the burden and whose record does not show which part of a divisible statute they pleaded to loses; a record that is inconclusive helps the resident at home and hurts the same resident at the border.
The 212(h) route for a returning resident
INA 212(h) waives inadmissibility for a CIMT, for a single offense of simple possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana, for the multiple-conviction ground and for prostitution, on one of three routes: the offense is more than 15 years old and you are rehabilitated; or refusal would cause extreme hardship to a citizen or resident spouse, parent, son or daughter; or you are a VAWA self-petitioner. It does not reach murder or torture, and for a violent or dangerous crime it is granted only in extraordinary circumstances or on a showing of exceptional and extremely unusual hardship. 8 C.F.R. 1212.7(d); Matter of Jean, 23 I&N Dec. 373 (A.G. 2002).
The bar for residents is the part that matters here. No waiver is available to a person "previously admitted to the United States as an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence" who has since been convicted of an aggravated felony, or who has not lawfully resided continuously for seven years before proceedings began. Under Matter of J-H-J-, 26 I&N Dec. 563 (BIA 2015), that bar reaches only a resident who entered at a port of entry as a permanent resident. A resident who adjusted status inside the country is not subject to it, and can seek 212(h) for a CIMT even with an aggravated felony on the record, though the aggravated felony has its own consequences on every other page of this site. A resident who came in on an immigrant visa is subject to both prongs. Which kind of resident you are is the first question the immigration lawyer will ask.
A 212(h) grant also lifts the travel clause itself: a resident granted the waiver is no longer within 101(a)(13)(C)(v) for that offense. So for a resident with a single waivable conviction and a qualifying relative, the sequence is the waiver first and the trip second, not the other way round. The waivers page covers 212(h) alongside former 212(c), which under INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289 (2001), remains available for a plea entered before April 1, 1997.
The 212(h) waiver as it is litigated before the judge, including for a returning resident charged as an arriving alien.
The 212(h) waiver →
immigrationtrial.comDetained removal defense: what happens after a resident is held at the port and placed in proceedings without bond.
Detained removal defense →
Visa holders, applicants and advance parole
A nonimmigrant who leaves and returns is seeking admission every time, and the inadmissibility list above applies at the port with the burden on the traveler. A student, a worker or a visitor with a CIMT outside the petty offense exception, or with any drug conviction or admission, is on that list. That much we can say.
The rest of the nonimmigrant's trip is a separate matter. Whether a conviction voids the visa in the passport, what a consular officer will do at the next interview, what Customs and Border Protection does with a traveler it finds inadmissible at the port, and whether that traveler is placed before an immigration judge or removed without a hearing, are consular and CBP questions governed by other authorities. Ask us before you book. The same is true of advance parole for a person with a pending application: whether the document protects the application, and what the traveler is on return, are also questions to bring to us first. Our site immigrationtrial.com covers removal proceedings for arriving aliens.
The safer sequence
Read the record before the trip. For a resident, that means the offense category, the maximum, the sentence, the date of conviction against April 1, 1997, and how the green card was obtained. For a nonimmigrant or an applicant, it means the same reading against the inadmissibility list, and then a separate conversation with us about the visa and the parole document. If the record puts you on the list and the trip can wait, it should. If it cannot, the waiver comes before the ticket.
Read next: pleas for green card holders, deportability versus inadmissibility, waivers after a conviction, or the petty offense exception.
Common questions
I have a green card and a misdemeanor. Can I travel?
Not until the record has been read. Under INA 101(a)(13)(C)(v), a resident who has committed an offense identified in INA 212(a)(2) is treated as seeking admission on return, unless 212(h) or cancellation has been granted since. A CIMT that is outside the five-year deportability clock, or inside the petty offense exception, may or may not be a 212(a)(2) offense depending on the maximum and the sentence, and a drug conviction of any kind is one. The answer depends on the offense, the sentence and the date, and it has to be worked out before the trip, not at the airport.
My conviction is from 1994. Does the rule apply to me?
No. Under Vartelas v. Holder, INA 101(a)(13)(C)(v) does not apply to a resident whose conviction predates the April 1, 1997 effective date of the 1996 law that created it, and the earlier standard from Fleuti, under which a brief, casual and innocent trip was not a departure at all, governs those travelers. The deportability grounds still apply to the conviction itself.
What happens if I am found inadmissible at the airport?
A resident treated as seeking admission carries the burden of showing clearly and beyond doubt that they are entitled to be admitted, INA 240(c)(2), and a person inadmissible under 212(a)(2) is subject to mandatory detention under INA 236(c)(1)(A). The 212(h) waiver is the route back for a CIMT or a single small marijuana possession, subject to the bar for residents who entered at a port of entry as permanent residents, which under Matter of J-H-J- does not reach a resident who adjusted status inside the country.
I am on a visa, or I have a pending green card application. Can I travel?
A nonimmigrant who leaves and returns is seeking admission, and the inadmissibility list applies at the port. Beyond that, what a consular officer does with the visa and what Customs and Border Protection does at the port are consular and CBP questions with their own rules, and travel with advance parole while an application is pending is a question of its own. Get advice before booking, not before boarding.
Tell us about the charge before you take the plea. Not after.
You get a free conversation with an immigration attorney, in your language. We speak English, Russian, Spanish and Uzbek in-house, and we bring in a live interpreter for anything else. We will read the charge against the immigration statute, tell you what the offered plea does to your status and to every form of relief, and tell you what to ask your criminal lawyer to negotiate instead. If the plea has already been entered, we will tell you what can still be done.