Aggravated Felony Conviction Blocks Green Card and Citizenship
What if a criminal conviction from years ago now permanently bars you from getting a green card — or ever becoming a US citizen? The Board of Immigration Appeals answered that question in September 2026, ruling that anyone convicted of an aggravated felony is inadmissible under federal law and cannot adjust status or naturalize. The decision overturns a 26-year-old precedent and affects immigrants already in removal proceedings.
What if the deadline to fight your removal has already passed, and a new ruling just made your situation harder? On September 17, 2026, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) — the highest immigration appeals court in the US — issued a decision in Matter of A-V-O- that changes the legal landscape for immigrants with serious criminal convictions. The BIA ruled that a conviction for an aggravated felony makes a person "permanently ineligible to citizenship" under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). That finding triggers a separate ground of inadmissibility, meaning the person cannot apply for a green card from inside the US (called "adjustment of status") and cannot naturalize. The ruling overturns Matter of Kanga, a BIA decision from 2000 that had reached the opposite conclusion.
What the case was actually about
The respondent, a Nicaraguan citizen, entered the US on a visitor visa in 1996 and overstayed. In 2020, a federal court in Florida convicted her of two crimes: using an unauthorized access device and aggravated identity theft. She was sentenced to a total of 32 months in prison. The key legal fight was over the dollar amount of the loss tied to her conviction. Her lawyers argued the loss was only $3,450.42 — the price she paid for five cell phones in one transaction. The BIA disagreed. Her federal judgment of conviction listed the total victim loss as $345,100.14 and ordered her to pay that amount in restitution, jointly and severally with her co-defendants. Under the "circumstance-specific" approach required by the US Supreme Court in Nijhawan v. Holder (2009), the BIA looked at the full record of her conviction — not just one transaction — and found the $345,100.14 figure was properly tied to her convicted conduct. Because that amount exceeds the $10,000 threshold in the INA, her offenses qualify as aggravated felonies.
Immigration Deadlines 2026 — Free
Download PDF with all key dates
The BIA then went further. It held that an aggravated felony conviction permanently bars a person from showing "good moral character," which is required for naturalization. Because the person can never meet the naturalization requirements, she is "permanently ineligible to citizenship" under INA section 212(a)(8)(A). That makes her inadmissible — even if she had a path to a green card otherwise. The BIA explicitly overruled Matter of Kanga, which had held that this inadmissibility ground did not apply to aggravated felons in this way. The respondent's appeal was dismissed, and her removal order stands.
What to do
- If you have any criminal conviction — even an old one — and you are in removal proceedings or planning to apply for a green card, talk to an immigration lawyer before filing anything. This ruling adds a new layer of inadmissibility that did not exist under the old Kanga standard.
- If you were relying on Matter of Kanga as part of your legal strategy, ask your attorney to review your case immediately in light of Matter of A-V-O- (BIA 2026).
- If you received a restitution order as part of a criminal sentence, do not assume only "your share" counts for immigration purposes. The BIA confirmed that joint and several restitution orders reflect the full loss amount tied to your conviction.
- If you are considering a section 212(h) waiver (a waiver of certain grounds of inadmissibility) alongside an adjustment of status application, be aware that this ruling may block that path entirely for aggravated felons — consult a lawyer about your specific facts.
Related: our step-by-step guide — “Immigration Court Rulings”.
Fishkin Law Firm, New York
This ruling closes a door that some practitioners had kept open since 2000. Under the old Kanga standard, an aggravated felony conviction did not automatically trigger inadmissibility under INA 212(a)(8)(A); now it does. That means clients who were planning to seek adjustment of status combined with a 212(h) waiver need to reassess — the 212(h) waiver does not cure the 212(a)(8)(A) bar. Anyone with a fraud-related federal conviction and a restitution order should have an attorney review the full judgment, not just the plea agreement, because joint and several restitution figures now carry direct immigration consequences. Consult an immigration attorney before taking any steps in your case.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is an aggravated felony for immigration purposes?
It is a category of crimes defined in INA section 101(a)(43). It includes fraud or deceit offenses where the victim's loss exceeded $10,000, among many other crimes. An aggravated felony conviction has severe immigration consequences, including deportation and — after this September 2026 BIA ruling — permanent ineligibility for a green card and citizenship.
Does this ruling affect me if my conviction is old?
Possibly yes. The INA's bar on good moral character for aggravated felons applies to anyone convicted 'at any time.' The BIA's new ruling in Matter of A-V-O- does not have a cutoff date for old convictions. If you were convicted of an aggravated felony at any point, you may now face this additional ground of inadmissibility.
My restitution order was joint and several with co-defendants. Does the full amount count against me?
According to the BIA's September 2026 ruling, yes. The Board held that a joint and several restitution order reflects the full loss amount tied to your conviction — even if co-defendants are also responsible for paying it. The fact that others share the obligation does not reduce the loss amount attributed to you for immigration purposes.
Can I still apply for protection under the Convention Against Torture if I have an aggravated felony?
Deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) is a separate form of protection that is not automatically barred by an aggravated felony conviction. However, the standard is very high — you must show it is more likely than not that you would be tortured by or with the consent of the government in your home country. In the Matter of A-V-O- case, the respondent's CAT claim was also denied based on the facts of her case.