Child Neglect Plea Blocks Deportation Defense, 7th Circuit Rules

What if you pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor years ago — and only now learned it may end your chance to stay in the United States? That is exactly what happened to Maria Reynoso-Salgado. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled in September 2026 that her 2012 guilty plea to child neglect under Wisconsin law makes her ineligible for cancellation of removal (a form of deportation defense available to long-term residents in removal proceedings).

Reynoso-Salgado entered the U.S. in 1997 and lived here for more than 25 years. After the Department of Homeland Security placed her in removal proceedings, she applied for cancellation of removal under federal immigration law. That relief requires, among other things, that the applicant has no conviction for a crime that triggers deportation. An immigration judge denied her application, finding that her child neglect plea qualified as a "crime of child abuse" under federal law — a category that bars cancellation. The Board of Immigration Appeals agreed. The Seventh Circuit, reviewing the case independently without deferring to the Board, reached the same conclusion: the Wisconsin statute is a categorical match to the federal definition of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment.

The court applied what lawyers call the "categorical approach" — comparing the elements of the Wisconsin statute to the federal definition, without looking at the specific facts of Reynoso-Salgado's case. The Wisconsin law required an intentional act or failure to act by someone responsible for a child's welfare that contributed to the child's neglect. The federal definition, as interpreted by the Fourth Circuit in Cruz v. Garland (2024) and adopted here, covers any act or omission that either injures a child or creates a sufficiently high risk of harm. The Seventh Circuit found the two definitions align. The court also noted that after the Supreme Court's 2024 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, federal courts no longer automatically defer to the Board of Immigration Appeals when a statute is ambiguous — judges now apply their own independent legal analysis.

What This Means If You Have a Past Conviction

This ruling applies directly in Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin — the three states covered by the Seventh Circuit. But courts in other circuits may reach similar conclusions. If you have any criminal conviction, even a misdemeanor, and you are in removal proceedings or plan to apply for immigration relief, this case is a warning: a plea that seemed minor at the time can permanently close off certain forms of relief.

What to do

• If you are in removal proceedings and have any past conviction — including misdemeanors — tell your immigration attorney immediately. Do not assume a minor plea is harmless.
• Ask an immigration lawyer to run a "categorical analysis" of your conviction against federal immigration law. This is a specific legal test, and the result can determine whether you qualify for cancellation of removal or other relief.
• If you pleaded guilty without being told about immigration consequences, ask an attorney whether you may have grounds to withdraw the plea under Padilla v. Kentucky (2010), which requires defense lawyers to advise non-citizen clients about deportation risks.
• Follow updates from the Board of Immigration Appeals and your circuit court — the end of Chevron deference means courts are now deciding these questions independently, and outcomes may shift.

Related: our step-by-step guide — “Immigration Court Rulings”.