[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":3,"doc-seo-177905-105":53,"doc-detail-177905-en":127},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,14,19,24,29,34,39,44,49],{"id":8,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":11,"show_sort_weight":12,"slug":13},11,1,"Template","Presentations",90,"presentations",{"id":15,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":16,"show_sort_weight":17,"slug":18},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":20,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":21,"show_sort_weight":22,"slug":23},14,"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":25,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":26,"show_sort_weight":27,"slug":28},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":30,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":31,"show_sort_weight":32,"slug":33},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":35,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":36,"show_sort_weight":37,"slug":38},17,"Forms",40,"forms",{"id":40,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":41,"show_sort_weight":42,"slug":43},18,"Letters",30,"letters",{"id":45,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":46,"show_sort_weight":47,"slug":48},21,"Paper Templates",5,"papers-templates",{"id":50,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":51,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":52},158,"General","general-158",{"code":4,"msg":54,"data":55},"ok",{"site_id":56,"language":57,"slug":58,"title":59,"keywords":60,"description":61,"schema_data":62,"social_meta":120,"head_meta":122,"extra_data":124,"updated_unix":126},105,"en","sample-memorandum-of-law-immigration-proceedings","Sample Memorandum of Law - Immigration Proceedings","","Sample memorandum of law addresses how a vacated state criminal conviction affects immigration consequences. It explains that a conviction vacated due to procedural or substantive legal defects under California Penal Code § 1473.7(a)(1) is not treated as a “conviction” under INA § 101(a)(48)(A). The memo cites relevant BIA and Ninth Circuit authority, emphasizing that § 1473.7 vacaturs arise from prejudicial error, may involve ineffective assistance of counsel, and are not rehabilitative.",{"@graph":63,"@context":119},[64,80,102],{"@type":65,"itemListElement":66},"BreadcrumbList",[67,71,74,77],{"item":68,"name":69,"@type":70,"position":9},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":72,"name":10,"@type":70,"position":73},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/",2,{"item":75,"name":41,"@type":70,"position":76},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/letters/",3,{"item":78,"name":59,"@type":70,"position":79},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/sample-memorandum-of-law-immigration-proceedings/177905/",4,{"url":78,"name":59,"@type":81,"image":82,"author":87,"headline":59,"publisher":90,"fileFormat":93,"inLanguage":57,"description":61,"dateModified":94,"datePublished":95,"encodingFormat":93,"isAccessibleForFree":96,"interactionStatistic":97},"DigitalDocument",{"url":83,"@type":84,"width":85,"height":86},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/sample-memorandum-of-law-immigration-proceedings/177905.png","ImageObject",442,249,{"name":88,"@type":89},"Oliver","Person",{"url":68,"name":91,"@type":92},"DocShare","Organization","application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document","2026-10-20","2026-09-02",true,{"@type":98,"interactionType":99,"userInteractionCount":101},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":100},"ViewAction",7,{"@type":103,"mainEntity":104},"FAQPage",[105,111,115],{"name":106,"@type":107,"acceptedAnswer":108},"What does the memorandum say about the attached sample memorandum of law?","Question",{"text":109,"@type":110},"It states the sample does not replace independent legal advice and is not intended to constitute legal advice.","Answer",{"name":112,"@type":107,"acceptedAnswer":113},"Why is a conviction vacated under California Penal Code § 1473.7(a)(1) not considered an immigration “conviction”?",{"text":114,"@type":110},"Because the statute authorizes vacaturs only when the conviction or sentence is legally invalid due to prejudicial procedural or substantive defects, not rehabilitation.",{"name":116,"@type":107,"acceptedAnswer":117},"What authorities does the memorandum rely on to support the immigration effect of a vacatur?",{"text":118,"@type":110},"It cites cases such as Nath v. Gonzales and Pickering, as well as BIA decisions including Matter of Pickering and Matter of Rodriguez-Ruiz, explaining that vacaturs based on legal defect fall outside the INA’s “conviction” definition.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":78,"og:type":121,"og:title":59,"og:site_name":91,"og:description":61},"article",{"robots":123,"canonical":78},"index,follow",{"doc_id":125,"site_id":56},177905,1788329589,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":128},{"doc_id":125,"user_id":129,"nickname":88,"user_avatar":130,"doc_module":9,"category_id":40,"category_name":41,"doc_title":59,"doc_description":61,"doc_content":131,"file_id":132,"file_url":133,"file_type":134,"file_size":135,"view_count":101,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":9,"is_downloadable":9,"audit_status":9,"page_count":136,"language":137,"language_code":57,"site_id":56,"html_lang":57,"table_of_contents":138,"faqs":139,"seo_title":140,"seo_description":61,"update_tm":126,"read_time":76},8796095461610,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_276721f389ce27ea32af1340a28f341c","sample memorandum of law\nThe attached sample memorandum of law is not a substitute for independent legal advice supplied by a lawyer familiar with a client’s case. It is not intended as, nor does it constitute, legal advice.\nIt is intended to be used to present arguments and briefing in immigration proceedings. If used, it is beneficial to attach the Table of Cases as an appendix to the brief.\n\u000f\nINTRODUCTION\n“[A] conviction vacated because of a procedural or substantive defect is not considered a ‘conviction’ for immigration purposes and cannot serve as the basis for removability.” Nath v. Gonzales, 467 F.3d 1185, 1189 (9th Cir. 2006) (quotations omitted). See also Pickering, 23 I&N Dec. at 624 (“[I]f a court with jurisdiction vacates a conviction based on a defect in the underlying criminal proceedings, the respondent no longer has a ‘conviction’ within the meaning of section 101(a)(48)(A).”); Wiedersperg v. I.N.S., 896 F.3d 1179, 1181 (9th Cir. 1990). The Respondent’s prior conviction has been vacated by the Superior Court of the State of California pursuant to California Penal Code § 1473.7(a)(1), due to legal defect. As a result, this prior offense is not a “conviction” under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA” or “the Act”). See INA § 101(a)(48)(A); Matter of Pickering, 23 I&N Dec. 621 (2003); Cal. P.C. § 1473.7. The Respondent’s prior conviction therefore does not render [him/her/them] [removable, ineligible for relief, or subject to detention under INA § 236(c)].\nSection 1473.7(a)(1) authorizes vacaturs where the defendant’s “conviction or sentence is legally invalid due to a prejudicial error damaging the moving party’s ability to meaningfully understand, defend against, or knowingly accept the actual or potential adverse immigration consequences of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere. A finding of legal invalidity may, but need not, include a finding of ineffective assistance of counsel.” Cal. P.C. § 1473.7(a)(1). It is not a rehabilitative statute. The law vacates convictions that are defective because of violation of constitutional and statutory rights to due process and assistance of counsel. A vacatur on this basis necessarily falls outside the definition of “conviction” in federal immigration law, as multiple panels of the BIA have recognized. See Table of Cases, Appendix A, Appendix B. (collecting BIA cases holding prior convictions vacated under § 1473.7 are not “convictions” under the INA, and that prior convictions vacated because they were undermined by ineffective assistance of counsel, or secured through pleas that were not knowing, voluntary and intelligent, are not “convictions” under the INA).\nA state court vacatur pursuant to § 1473.7 conclusively establishes vacatur for defect that meets the holdings in Pickering and Nath. See Matter of Rodriguez-Ruiz, 22 I&N Dec. 1378, 1379 (BIA 2011) (declining “to go behind the state court judgment” where the “criminal law provision under which the respondent’s conviction was vacated [was] neither an expungement statute nor a rehabilitative statute”). By its plain language, § 1473.7 vacates convictions “because of a defect in the underlying criminal proceedings,” and not because of “rehabilitation.” Matter of Adamiak, 23 I&N Dec. 878, 879 (BIA 2006). Vacatur of the Respondent’s prior conviction pursuant to § 1473.7 conclusively establishes that the offense is not a “conviction” under the Act. The government bears the burden of proving “the state set side” a prior offense for rehabilitative purposes, but “failed to carry its burden” here because § 1473.7 authorizes vacaturs only in cases of procedural or substantive defect. Nath, 467 F.3d at 1189.\nARGUMENT\nA PRIOR CONVICTION vacated UNDER CalIFORNIA PENAL CODE     § 1473.7(a)(1) IS NOT A “conviction” under ina § 101(a)(48)(a) because ALL § 1473.7(a)(1) vacaturs ARE FOR LEGAL DEFECT.\nCalifornia Penal Code § 1473.7 exclusively vacates convictions for substantive and procedural defects. The law authorizes vacatu","cbCaid7iVF5P7303","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaid7iVF5P7303","docx",52437,9,"English","# Introduction\n# Argument\n## A Prior Conviction Vacated Under Cal. Penal Code § 1473.7(a)(1) Is Not a “Conviction” Under INA § 101(a)(48)(A)\n## Vacaturs Are for Legal Defect, Not Rehabilitation","[{\"question\":\"What does the memorandum say about the attached sample memorandum of law?\",\"answer\":\"It states the sample does not replace independent legal advice and is not intended to constitute legal advice.\"},{\"question\":\"Why is a conviction vacated under California Penal Code § 1473.7(a)(1) not considered an immigration “conviction”?\",\"answer\":\"Because the statute authorizes vacaturs only when the conviction or sentence is legally invalid due to prejudicial procedural or substantive defects, not rehabilitation.\"},{\"question\":\"What authorities does the memorandum rely on to support the immigration effect of a vacatur?\",\"answer\":\"It cites cases such as Nath v. Gonzales and Pickering, as well as BIA decisions including Matter of Pickering and Matter of Rodriguez-Ruiz, explaining that vacaturs based on legal defect fall outside the INA’s “conviction” definition.\"}]","Sample Memorandum of Law - Immigration Proceedings | DOCX"]