Law360 (August 24, 2026, 9:00 PM EDT) -- The Fourth Circuit concluded Monday that a Mexico native's since-vacated marijuana conviction in North Carolina state court does not render her inadmissible in the U.S., departing from a long-standing framework that considered vacated convictions valid for immigration purposes unless they're vacated due to substantive or procedural defects. 

In a 23-page published opinion, the Fourth Circuit granted and denied in part Lizbeyde Yanez Piedra's petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals' final removal order, explaining that an alien is not inadmissible under section 1182(a)(2)(A)(i) based on vacated convictions. 

"The board's conclusion to the contrary was legal error, and we vacate its decision," the Fourth Circuit said. 

The BIA's framework for analyzing vacated convictions is premised on its 2003 decision in Matter of Pickering , according to the opinion. In Pickering, the board noted that vacated convictions are considered valid for immigration purposes unless they're vacated for defects in the underlying proceedings. But convictions that are vacated for rehabilitative purposes, or to circumvent immigration consequences, still count as convictions, the opinion said. 

"The board's framework for analyzing vacated convictions may make good policy, but it is not the result of good statutory interpretation," the Fourth Circuit said Monday. "Because Yanez Piedra's drug conviction has been vacated, she is not now an 'alien convicted of' a controlled-substance offense. The board's decision denying remand thus rested on an incorrect legal conclusion."

According to the opinion, Yanez Piedra came to the United States as a child and has lived here since. She was later convicted of three crimes in North Carolina state court in 2006, shortly after gaining legal permanent residency status. In one case, she was convicted of common law forgery, and in another, she pleaded guilty to possessing between one-half and 1.5 ounces of marijuana. 

After completing her noncustodial sentences for the crimes, customs officials issued her a notice to appear when she returned to the United States from a trip to Mexico in 2013, the opinion said. In her removal proceedings, the petitioner conceded inadmissibility in the U.S. as an "'alien convicted of'" a controlled-substance offense and crime involving moral turpitude. 

Yanez Piedra sought a waiver under 8 U.S.C. section 1182(h), which renders an immigrant inadmissible for specific crimes, mainly those involving controlled substances and moral turpitude, the opinion said. 

The immigration judge however, found Yanez Piedra wasn't eligible for the waiver, finding she didn't show the relevant offense involved 30 milligrams or less of marijuana, or that her leaving the United States would cause extreme hardship for one of her resident family members, the opinion said.

The immigration judge however, did grant her request for voluntary departure. Yanez Piedra subsequently challenged the immigration court's order to the BIA. While that was pending, the North Carolina state court vacated her marijuana conviction, and the prosecution dismissed the underlying charge. Yanez Piedra then moved for the BIA to remand her case to the immigration court, but the BIA denied her motion and dismissed her appeal, the opinion said. 

While the BIA didn't adopt the immigration court's order, it independently analyzed Yanez Piedra's case, focusing on the vacated marijuana conviction, the Fourth Circuit said. In applying its rationale from Pickering, the BIA ultimately said Yanez Piedra's marijuana conviction was not invalid for immigration purposes and upheld the immigration court's order finding she was statutorily barred from getting a waiver. 

In her appeal of the BIA's order, Yanez Piedra told the Fourth Circuit the board erred in rejecting her remand motion based on its finding that her vacated marijuana conviction still counted against her, under Pickering. She further contended the regulations governing the timing of voluntary departure were arbitrary and capricious, according to the Fourth Circuit. 

The Fourth Circuit agreed with the petitioner's position that her vacated marijuana conviction didn't make her an "alien convicted of" a controlled-substance violation and that the panel wasn't bound to apply Pickering to her case.

By finding that Yanez Piedra's marijuana conviction made her inadmissible even though it was vacated, the BIA mistakenly applied a legal framework that ran afoul with "the statutory text and the background principles which Congress wrote," the panel said. 

"When asking whether a person is an 'alien convicted of' a controlled-substance offense under [section] 1182(a)(2)(A)(i), a court may not consider vacated convictions," the Fourth Circuit said. 

In a footnote, the Fourth Circuit judges added that their findings aren't to say the immigration court mistakenly concluded that Yanez Piedra was an alien convicted of a controlled substance offense. The footnote went on to explain that the petitioner herself conceded removability, and that the North Carolina state court vacated her marijuana conviction after the immigration court issued its decision. 

"Like other questions left open here (including the effect, if any, of Yanez Piedra's initial concession of removability), we leave that question for the agency to decide in the first instance," the footnote said.

But the Fourth Circuit judges rejected the petitioner's challenge to the rules dealing with the timing of voluntary departure after filing of a petition of review, finding the regulations to be reasonable. 

Representatives for the parties did not immediately respond to requests for comment Monday.

U.S. Circuit Judges Albert Diaz, Julius N. Richardson and Barbara Milano Keenan sat on the panel for the Fourth Circuit.

Yanez Piedra is represented by Allison Lukanich of the Law Office of Allison Lukanich PLLC and Benjamin Ross Winograd of Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center LLC.

The government is represented by Todd Blanche, Brett Shumate, Stephen J. Flynn and Jonathan Stephen Needle of the U.S. Department of Justice.

The Immigrant Defense Project, which filed an amicus supporting the petitioner, is represented in-house by Elena Noureddine, Nabilah Tabassum Siddiquee and Andrew Wachtenheim.

The case is Lizbeyde Yanez Piedra v. Todd Blanche, case number 25-1258, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

--Editing by Kristen Becker.

For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.