Aggravated Felony Immigration Calculator
Determine if a conviction qualifies as an aggravated felony for immigration purposes.
Need Help Understanding Your Sentencing Range?
Our federal defense attorneys have decades of experience navigating the federal sentencing guidelines.
Call (212) 300-5196Get Personalized Legal Guidance
Our attorneys can analyze your specific situation and identify strategies to reduce your sentence.
Aggravated Felony Immigration – What You Need to Know
Federal immigration cases sit at the intersection of criminal law and immigration law – and the consequences of getting it wrong are devastating. Determine if a conviction qualifies as an aggravated felony for immigration purposes.
If you’re dealing with a federal immigration case, it’s not just about the criminal sentence. A conviction can create a permanent bar to future immigration relief, trigger mandatory deportation, and affect pending applications for family members. You need an attorney who understands both systems – criminal and immigration – and can navigate them simultaneously. At Federal Lawyers, that’s exactly what we do.
How Federal Immigration Sentencing Works
For illegal reentry cases under 8 USC §1326, the guideline calculation under §2L1.2 starts with a base offense level of 8, with enhancements of +2 to +10 depending on the seriousness of the prior conviction that led to deportation. But there’s an important defense that many attorneys miss: you can challenge the validity of the underlying deportation order itself. If the prior removal proceeding was constitutionally deficient – no proper notice, no opportunity to apply for relief, ineffective counsel – the deportation may be invalid, which defeats an element of the §1326 charge.
Fast-track programs offer significant sentence reductions – typically 4 levels – in many border districts. But these programs are administered at the discretion of each district’s U.S. Attorney, which creates geographic disparities. Knowing whether a fast-track program is available in your district, and how to access it, is something your attorney needs to handle.
For alien smuggling under §2L1.1, the guidelines distinguish between commercial smuggling and smuggling motivated by personal relationships or humanitarian concerns. The base offense levels are dramatically different. If you were helping a family member, not running a commercial operation, the characterization of the offense matters enormously.
What Most People Don’t Realize About Aggravated Felony Immigration
The most critical thing people miss is that immigration cases should never be treated as simple guilty-plea-and-sentence affairs. There are real defenses, and there are ways to structure outcomes that preserve future immigration options. An optimal criminal outcome might look different from what minimizes prison time alone – because the immigration consequences can last a lifetime.
Many attorneys also fail to investigate citizenship. Derivative citizenship through parents is more common than most people realize. If you derived citizenship through a naturalized parent before age 18, or were born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent, you may actually be a citizen – which is a complete defense to illegal reentry charges. We always investigate this before accepting any plea.
Why You Need the Right Federal Defense Attorney
Immigration cases require a rare combination of criminal law expertise and immigration law knowledge. The wrong plea, or the wrong sentence, can trigger deportation, destroy pending applications, and create permanent bars to reentry. You need an attorney who sees the whole picture – not just the criminal case, but the immigration consequences as well.
At Federal Lawyers, our attorneys handle federal immigration cases nationwide. We understand the interaction between criminal and immigration law, and we know how to structure outcomes that protect our clients’ interests in both systems. If you’re facing federal immigration charges, this is not the time to go with a general practice attorney. You need a specialist – and that’s what we are.
Get Help Now – Risk Free Consultation
If you’re dealing with a situation involving aggravated felony immigration, you need an attorney who gets it – and has experience handling these exact types of cases. At Federal Lawyers, our criminal defense attorneys have over 50 years of combined experience handling federal cases nationwide. We’ve handled some of the toughest cases in the country, and we’re not afraid to fight for the best possible outcome.
When you reach out to our law firm, the process begins with a risk-free consultation. You can ask us anything, regardless of how long it takes. We are available 24/7 to help you. Call us at (212) 300-5196 – your first consultation is free, and completely confidential.
Disclaimer: This calculator provides estimates based on the United States Sentencing Guidelines. It does not constitute legal advice. Federal sentencing involves many factors not captured here – including judicial discretion, cooperation agreements, and individual case circumstances. Always consult with a qualified federal criminal defense attorney.
Frequently Asked Questions
How does the categorical approach under Taylor v. United States apply to determining whether a state conviction qualifies as an aggravated felony for immigration purposes?
Under Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990), and as refined in Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013), courts compare the elements of the state statute of conviction to the federal “generic” definition of the aggravated felony category. If the state statute is broader than the generic federal offense — criminalizing conduct that would not satisfy the federal definition — the conviction categorically does not qualify as an aggravated felony. For divisible statutes (those listing alternative elements), the modified categorical approach under Mathis v. United States, 579 U.S. 500 (2016), permits courts to examine a limited set of documents (plea colloquy, charging document, jury instructions) to determine which statutory alternative formed the basis of conviction. This analysis is critical because INA § 101(a)(43) lists 21 categories of aggravated felonies, and many state statutes are drafted more broadly than their federal counterparts. For example, state “burglary” statutes that include vehicles or boats are broader than generic burglary (which requires entry into a building or structure), so convictions under such statutes may not qualify — a distinction that can mean the difference between mandatory deportation and eligibility for cancellation of removal.
What happened to the Matter of Silva-Trevino framework for assessing moral turpitude and aggravated felony determinations?
In Matter of Silva-Trevino, 24 I&N Dec. 687 (AG 2008), Attorney General Mukasey created a three-step framework that controversially allowed immigration judges to look beyond the categorical approach to “any evidence” of criminal conduct — including police reports and victim statements — to determine if a conviction involved moral turpitude. This sparked a circuit split: the Fifth Circuit applied Silva-Trevino, while the Third, Fourth, Seventh, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits rejected the “any evidence” step as inconsistent with Taylor. In Matter of Silva-Trevino, 26 I&N Dec. 826 (BIA 2016) (Silva-Trevino II), the BIA abandoned the “any evidence” approach and adopted the categorical/modified categorical framework consistent with Descamps and Mathis. This is now settled law: immigration judges must use the same categorical approach as federal courts when assessing whether convictions constitute aggravated felonies or crimes involving moral turpitude. Defense counsel should challenge any attempt by DHS trial attorneys to introduce extra-record evidence of underlying conduct, as this violates the post-Silva-Trevino II framework and the Supreme Court’s categorical approach jurisprudence.
