Matter of A-V-O-: Aggravated Felony Convictions Now Bar Green Cards as "Ineligible to Citizenship"

On September 17, 2026, the Board of Immigration Appeals issued Matter of A-V-O-, 30 I&N Dec. 44 (BIA 2026), a precedent that changes what an aggravated felony conviction means for anyone who later needs to be admitted as an immigrant. The Board held that a person convicted of an aggravated felony is inadmissible under section 212(a)(8)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act as someone who is "ineligible to citizenship," and it overruled its own 26-year-old precedent, Matter of Kanga. Because the new rule applies only going forward, the date of the plea or verdict now matters as much as the offense.

The facts of the case

The respondent, a citizen of Nicaragua, was admitted on a visitor visa in June 1996 and overstayed. She was ordered removed in absentia in 2004, and an Immigration Judge reopened the case in 2019. The Department of Homeland Security then added a deportability charge for an aggravated felony based on a federal fraud conviction. The judgment listed a total loss of $345,100.14 and ordered restitution in the same amount, owed jointly and severally with co-defendants. The Board agreed that the loss exceeded the $10,000 threshold for fraud offenses, an issue we explain in our guide to fraud loss and restitution.

What the Board decided

Section 212(a)(8)(A) makes inadmissible any immigrant who is permanently ineligible to citizenship. The Board read the statute by its plain language. A person convicted of an aggravated felony cannot show good moral character under section 101(f)(8), so he or she is permanently barred from naturalizing under section 316(a), codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1427(a). That makes the person "ineligible to citizenship" as defined in section 101(a)(19), and therefore inadmissible under section 212(a)(8)(A).

In Matter of Kanga, 22 I&N Dec. 1206 (BIA 2000), the Board had limited the phrase "ineligible to citizenship" to people who evaded military service. The new decision finds nothing in the text that supports that limit and overrules Kanga. It also declines to follow a 1969 Regional Commissioner decision, Matter of Martin-Arencibia.

Who the new rule reaches

The Board ran a retroactivity analysis and chose to apply the holding only prospectively. In its words, the rule applies to people seeking admission as immigrants who incur an aggravated felony conviction based on a plea of guilty or nolo contendere made, or a jury verdict entered, after the date of the decision. For the respondent herself the Board did not apply the new ground; it reviewed her waiver and protection claims under the earlier law and dismissed the appeal.

In practice the rule matters wherever admissibility as an immigrant is tested: adjustment of status before USCIS or an Immigration Judge, and immigrant visas at a consulate. It adds to the familiar consequences of an aggravated felony conviction, such as deportability and the bar to cancellation of removal for permanent residents.

Why the usual waiver may not help

The main criminal waiver, section 212(h), is written for grounds in section 212(a)(2): crimes involving moral turpitude, multiple convictions and certain other criminal grounds. Section 212(a)(8)(A) is a different ground. The Board itself described the change as one affecting whether aggravated felons may be admissible, "assuming eligibility for any relevant waivers." Anyone with a conviction from a plea or verdict after September 17, 2026 should get an individual analysis before relying on older waiver strategies or on the hardship lessons in our 212(h) article.

What to do now

• Check the exact date of any guilty plea or verdict; certified court minutes are the best proof. See why the plea date now matters.
• If a criminal case is still open, defense counsel should know about A-V-O- before any plea is entered.
• Adjustment in court follows the same admissibility rules as adjustment at USCIS; see adjusting status in removal proceedings.
• Delays are a separate problem from eligibility. A case study on a felony conviction and a stalled citizenship application shows what a federal lawsuit can force (a decision) and what it cannot (a favorable one).

Related Guides on This Site

See also Does Criminal Record Affect Immigration. See also Types of Criminal Offenses Affecting Immigration Status. See also Asylum, Withholding of Removal and CAT Protection with a Criminal Record.

Disclosure: Criminal Immigration Law collaborates with the law firm that publishes Mandamus.com and N600K.com; some articles link to their guides. General information only, not legal advice.