Hemantkumar Padhiyar v. Eric Holder, Jr., 560 F. App'x 514

Padhiyar, an Indian national who entered the U.S. without inspection in 1995, lives in Tennessee with his U.S.-born children and conceded removability.
In 2008 he was charged in Tennessee with theft and tax offenses; he pled under the state judicial diversion statute (Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-313) and was placed on probation.
DHS initiated removal proceedings; Padhiyar sought non‑resident cancellation of removal but the theft charge raised ineligibility concerns.
The IJ granted multiple continuances while state proceedings (including a post‑conviction petition and later a motion to suspend remaining probation) proceeded; the IJ denied a final continuance and pretermitted his cancellation application.
After the IJ’s denial but before BIA review, the Tennessee court suspended the remaining probation and dismissed the charge under the diversion statute; the BIA nonetheless affirmed denial of relief and removal.

Issue	Padhiyar's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether the deferred adjudication/ dismissal under Tenn. Code § 40‑35‑313 counts as a "conviction" for INA § 1101(a)(48)(A) and thus bars cancellation under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b	The state suspension/dismissal eliminated any conviction, so he remains eligible for cancellation	The INA definition of "conviction" covers deferred adjudication where plea/admission plus probation occurred; state rehabilitative dismissal does not erase immigration conviction	The court held the INA definition applies: Padhiyar was "convicted" for immigration purposes and thus ineligible for cancellation of removal
Whether the IJ/BIA abused discretion by denying the final continuance	Continuance was necessary because state court action (suspension of probation) could negate the conviction and preserve eligibility	Multiple continuances had already been granted; government opposed further delay and denial was reasonable because likelihood of success was low	The court held the BIA did not abuse discretion in denying a further continuance

Sanusi v. Gonzales, 474 F.3d 341 (6th Cir.) (standard for de novo review of BIA statutory interpretations)
Patel v. Ashcroft, 401 F.3d 400 (6th Cir.) (de novo review principles)
Yeremin v. Holder, 738 F.3d 708 (6th Cir.) (theft as crime involving moral turpitude)
Kellermann v. Holder, 592 F.3d 700 (6th Cir.) (theft as crime of moral turpitude in immigration context)
Pickering v. Gonzales, 465 F.3d 263 (6th Cir.) (distinguishing vacatur reasons: rehabilitative vs. procedural/substantive)
Uritsky v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 728 (6th Cir.) (treatment of state diversion/expunction under INA conviction definition)
Pinho v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 193 (3d Cir.) (vacatur based on ineffective assistance removes immigration conviction)
Barakat v. Holder, 621 F.3d 398 (6th Cir.) (burden distinctions in removal challenges)
Young Hee Kwak v. Holder, 607 F.3d 1140 (6th Cir.) (standards for denial of continuance in immigration proceedings)
Lujan‑Armendariz v. Immigration and Naturalization Serv., 222 F.3d 728 (9th Cir.) (discussing BIA authority and precedent)