English
Spanish
You have an NRS section number on a criminal complaint and a question no page seems to answer: does this particular charge put your status at risk. Every explainer describes crimes involving moral turpitude and aggravated felonies as federal categories in the abstract, then stops before naming a single Nevada offense. That gap is where clients make decisions they cannot undo.
We at The Defense Firm negotiate these cases on the criminal side, which is the side where the offense of conviction and the agreed sentence are still moveable. This guide connects Nevada charge families to the federal categories, names the two thresholds that decide most outcomes, and explains why Nevada’s 364-day gross misdemeanor exists.
One caution belongs at the top. Whether a specific offense qualifies is decided by the categorical approach, which compares the elements of the statute against the federal definition, and the answers shift with case law. Nothing below is a prediction about your case, and every charge deserves a look at the actual subsection charged.
Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude in Nevada, and the Two Thresholds That Decide Everything
Starting with the rule almost everyone gets backwards. Under INA section 237(a)(2)(A)(i), a noncitizen is deportable for a CIMT committed within five years after the date of admission. The offense must be one for which a sentence of one year or longer may be imposed.
Read that last clause again. The trigger is the statutory maximum, not the sentence the judge handed down. A client who received probation on an offense carrying a possible two years has still been convicted of an offense for which a year or longer may be imposed. Sentencing leniency does not fix the immigration problem, and believing it does is the most expensive error in this area.
A second CIMT rule has no sentence element at all. Under section 237(a)(2)(A)(ii), two or more CIMT convictions not arising out of a single scheme make a person deportable regardless of sentence and regardless of the five-year window. Two small offenses years apart can do what one larger offense would not.
Aggravated felonies run on a different track and hit harder. Under section 237(a)(2)(A)(iii), conviction of an aggravated felony at any time after admission is a removal ground. The label strips away most discretionary relief, including asylum and cancellation of removal, along with future readmission. Several aggravated felony categories carry their own one-year term of imprisonment element, which is the second threshold that decides Nevada cases.
Those two numbers do most of the work. One year as a statutory maximum for the CIMT ground. One year as an actual term for several aggravated felony categories. Everything in the sections below turns on where a Nevada charge sits relative to them.
The 364-Day Gross Misdemeanor and Why Nevada Built It That Way
Nevada has a category of offense that exists partly because of federal immigration law. Under NRS 193.140, a gross misdemeanor is punishable by up to 364 days in county jail and a fine of up to $2,000.
That number is not an accident. Nevada reduced the ceiling from a full year to 364 days by legislation signed by Governor Sandoval, and the reason is arithmetic. At 364 days the maximum possible sentence stays under one year, which keeps the offense outside the CIMT threshold in section 237(a)(2)(A)(i) and outside the one-year term element in several aggravated felony categories.
The practical consequence is a negotiating tool. A gross misdemeanor plea and a felony plea can look similar to a client comparing jail exposure, and they are not similar at all in immigration terms. Our guide to felony and misdemeanor classifications in Nevada sets out the tiers, and our page on reducing charges without going to trial covers the mechanism.
No single feature saves every case. A gross misdemeanor can still be a CIMT for other purposes, including inadmissibility and discretionary decisions, and the two-CIMT rule ignores sentence length entirely. What the 364-day cap does is remove one specific threshold from the analysis, and that is often enough to change an outcome.
Theft and Property Charges
The classic CIMT is a theft offense, because the category has always reached conduct involving deceit or dishonesty. Nevada’s petit larceny and grand larceny provisions sit in this family, along with burglary under NRS 205.060 and possession of stolen property. An intent to permanently deprive the owner is the element that drives the analysis.
The aggravated felony question is separate and turns on the sentence. A theft offense becomes an aggravated felony where the term of imprisonment is at least one year, which is where the 364-day ceiling matters. The same conduct resolved as a gross misdemeanor, and resolved as a felony with a year imposed, produces very different files.
Nevada’s 2026 amendments added a wrinkle worth checking. Our guide to the Nevada retail theft felony covers a new provision reaching a category C felony at $750 in combined value once property damage joins the merchandise. That moves cases across the felony line on facts that used to stay below it.
Valuation is therefore an immigration issue as much as a sentencing one. Contesting the merchandise value or the damage estimate can decide whether a charge carries a one-year term. Our theft and burglary defense team treats those numbers as the first thing to attack.
Fraud, Forgery, and Bad Checks
Fraud and deceit offenses are reliably treated as crimes involving moral turpitude, because dishonesty is the core of the category. Forgery, bad check offenses under NRS 205.130, and credit card fraud all sit here.
The aggravated felony rule for fraud uses a different measure entirely. Fraud or deceit becomes an aggravated felony where the loss to the victim exceeds $10,000, and that category carries no sentence threshold. A probationary sentence on a large-loss fraud can be an aggravated felony, while a jail sentence on a small-loss fraud is not.
That makes the loss amount the whole negotiation in some cases. Restitution figures, the number recited in the plea, and how multiple counts are grouped all bear on whether the file crosses $10,000. A client who agrees to a global restitution figure without thinking about that line can create a removal ground with a signature.
Violence and Domestic Violence Charges
Nevada battery under NRS 200.481 and assault under NRS 200.471 raise two separate questions. Whether the offense is a CIMT depends on the elements charged. Offenses requiring an intent to injure are more likely to qualify than those resting on unwanted contact alone.
The aggravated felony route for violence carries the one-year element. A crime of violence becomes an aggravated felony where the term of imprisonment is at least one year, which again puts the 364-day gross misdemeanor in play as a structural alternative.
Domestic violence is different, and clients should know it. A conviction for a crime of domestic violence is its own removal ground, independent of the CIMT and aggravated felony analysis, and it reaches offenses that would qualify under neither. Our domestic violence and battery defense page covers the charge, and the immigration consequence is often more serious than the sentence.
Nevada’s 2026 changes matter here too. Our guide to battery on a hospitality worker covers a protected-person provision lifting an ordinary shove to a gross misdemeanor. With substantial bodily harm it becomes a category B felony carrying two to ten years, which moves the case across the one-year line.
Controlled Substance Charges
The controlled substance rules are the harshest in this area. Trafficking is an aggravated felony with no sentence threshold, so the label attaches on the offense alone and takes most relief with it.
Beyond trafficking, controlled substance convictions carry their own removal ground, operating independently of the CIMT framework. The exception is narrow, covering a single offense of simple possession of a small amount of marijuana, and clients should not assume their case fits it.
Charge selection carries unusual weight here. A possession count, a possession-with-intent count, and a trafficking count separate a case with options from a case without them. Our drug crimes defense page covers where those lines sit under Nevada law.
Paraphernalia and lesser counts sometimes offer a path. Whether an alternative avoids the controlled-substance ground depends on the substance and the statute, and that question needs answering before a plea rather than after.
Charges That Are Not Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude
Some charges frighten clients more than the immigration law does. A simple DUI, without an aggravating element, is generally not treated as a crime involving moral turpitude, because the offense lacks the intent the category contemplates.
That does not make a DUI harmless. A DUI causing death or substantial bodily harm is a different offense with different exposure. Our guide to Nevada’s 2026 DUI law changes covers the amendments that raised the ceiling on fatal cases to 25 years. Repeat offenses and enhancements can also reach categories a first offense does not.
The other common surprise runs the opposite way. Offenses clients treat as minor, including small theft counts and bad check matters, are the ones most reliably classified as CIMTs. The offense they were most worried about may not be. That inversion is why the charge number matters more than the charge name.
Record sealing does not undo any of it. A sealed Nevada record remains a conviction for federal immigration purposes, and our guide to Nevada record sealing waiting periods explains what sealing does and does not reach. Anyone planning around that should read it before assuming a clean slate.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does Probation Keep a Nevada Conviction From Triggering the Moral Turpitude Removal Ground?
For the moral turpitude ground, the sentence imposed is not the measure. Section 237(a)(2)(A)(i) asks whether the offense is one for which a sentence of one year or longer may be imposed, which points at the statutory maximum. Probation on a felony leaves the maximum intact.
Can Two Old Misdemeanors Trigger Removal Even if They Happened Years Ago?
That is the two-CIMT rule at work. Under section 237(a)(2)(A)(ii), two or more CIMT convictions not arising out of a single scheme create a removal ground with no sentence requirement and no five-year limit. Two small, unrelated offenses can therefore do more than one larger one.
Why Are My Criminal Lawyer and Immigration Lawyer Giving Me Different Answers?
They are answering different questions, and both answers can be right. The criminal attorney controls the offense of conviction and the agreed sentence while the case is open. The immigration attorney assesses what those produce. Ask them to speak to each other before any plea is entered, because after entry the criminal side has very little left to move.
Conclusion
For noncitizens, the outcome of a Nevada criminal case is not measured only by jail time, probation, or fines. The offense of conviction, the statutory maximum, the sentence imposed, and even the language used in a plea can determine whether a case later becomes a crime involving moral turpitude, an aggravated felony, or another ground for removal. A resolution that appears favorable in criminal court can still create serious immigration consequences if those issues are not considered before the plea is entered.
At The Defense Firm, we evaluate the criminal charge with those collateral consequences in mind and work with immigration counsel when necessary to understand how different plea options may affect a client’s status. If you are not a U.S. citizen and are facing criminal charges in Nevada, the time to address the immigration impact is before anything is signed. Contact The Defense Firm for a free confidential consultation to discuss your case and the options available.