What a DUI Does to Your Immigration Case, by Status

Does a DUI affect naturalization?

It can, and the number of convictions is what changes the analysis. USCIS evaluates good moral character over a defined window: five years immediately preceding the filing of the N-400 (8 U.S.C. § 1427(a)), or three years for an applicant filing as the spouse of a U.S. citizen who has lived in marital union with that spouse throughout (8 U.S.C. § 1430(a)).

With two or more DUI convictions inside that window, the USCIS Policy Manual states that “evidence of two or more DUI convictions during the statutory period establishes a rebuttable presumption that an alien lacks GMC.” The authority is Matter of Castillo-Perez, 27 I&N Dec. 664 (A.G. 2019).

The presumption can be rebutted, and the Policy Manual names the standard: “substantial relevant and credible contrary evidence.”

With one conviction there is no presumption, but the file is not closed. USCIS can weigh a single DUI as an unlawful act under 8 C.F.R. § 316.10(b)(3)(iii), which covers unlawful acts that adversely reflect on moral character unless extenuating circumstances are established.

Worth knowing separately: “habitual drunkard” is its own statutory bar under INA § 101(f)(1) and 8 C.F.R. § 316.10(b)(2)(xii), and the Policy Manual says that arrests or multiple convictions for public intoxication or DUI may be indicators of it. That provision reaches arrests, not only convictions.

Does an old DUI still count?

It can, even from outside the statutory period. This is the part that surprises most applicants.

Under 8 C.F.R. § 316.10(a)(2), USCIS “is not limited to reviewing the applicant’s conduct during the five years immediately preceding the filing of the application,” and may consider earlier conduct if the conduct during the statutory period “does not reflect that there has been reform of character from an earlier period,” or if the earlier conduct is relevant to present moral character.

The five-year clock defines what USCIS must review, not the outer limit of what it may review. So the practical question is not whether the DUI has aged out. It is what the years since then show.

Does a withhold of adjudication count as a conviction?

For immigration purposes, generally yes. For Florida DUI the question never comes up, because withhold is not available.

INA § 101(a)(48)(A) defines a conviction as a formal judgment of guilt “or, if adjudication of guilt has been withheld,” where a judge or jury found the person guilty or the person pleaded guilty or nolo contendere or admitted sufficient facts, and the judge ordered “some form of punishment, penalty, or restraint” on liberty. The withheld-adjudication case is written into the definition.

That matters across the rest of a criminal record: possession, theft, battery. Florida withholds are common there, and clients often believe the case “doesn’t count.”

For DUI specifically, Fla. Stat. § 316.656(1) forecloses it: “Notwithstanding the provisions of s. 948.01, no court may suspend, defer, or withhold adjudication of guilt or imposition of sentence for any violation of s. 316.193.” Every Florida DUI disposition is an adjudication.

Can a Florida DUI be sealed or expunged?

Not under the sealing statute, and the reason follows from two Florida statutes read together.

Sealing eligibility under Fla. Stat. § 943.059(1)(c) requires that the person “has not been adjudicated guilty of … any of the acts stemming from the arrest or alleged criminal activity to which the petition to seal pertains.” And § 316.656(1), above, makes adjudication mandatory in every DUI case.

Because a Florida DUI always produces an adjudication of guilt, it always fails the sealing statute’s eligibility test. There is no version of the case that qualifies.

This is a chain of two statutes rather than a holding, and the exact disposition in any individual file is what an attorney checks first.

Can a DUI make you deportable?

A simple DUI is not an aggravated felony on the crime-of-violence theory. The Supreme Court decided that, in a Florida case.

In Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1 (2004), the petitioner was a lawful permanent resident convicted of DUI causing serious bodily injury under Fla. Stat. § 316.193(3)(c)(2), on certiorari to the Eleventh Circuit, the federal circuit covering Florida. The Court reversed the removal order, reasoning that 18 U.S.C. § 16 requires “a higher mens rea than the merely accidental or negligent conduct involved in a DUI offense,” and that in no “ordinary or natural” sense does a person risk having to “use” physical force against another while driving intoxicated and causing injury.

What Leocal does not hold: it does not say no DUI-related charge carries immigration consequences. DUI manslaughter, DUI with a knowingly suspended license, and drug-related driving charges run through separate analyses. Which rule applies turns on the exact statute of conviction and the criminal-court record.

What the Laken Riley Act changed in 2025

It expanded mandatory detention, and the trigger includes arrest rather than conviction alone.

The Laken Riley Act (Pub. L. 119-1, January 29, 2025) added a new subparagraph to INA § 236(c)(1). It requires DHS to take into custody a person who meets both conditions: (i) is inadmissible under § 212(a)(6)(A), (6)(C), or (7), which includes entry without inspection, and (ii) “is charged with, is arrested for, is convicted of, admits having committed, or admits committing acts which constitute the essential elements of any burglary, theft, larceny, shoplifting, or assault of a law enforcement officer offense, or any crime that results in death or serious bodily injury to another person.”

The Act provides that those terms carry the meaning given “in the jurisdiction in which the acts occurred,” so Florida definitions govern a Florida case.

A DUI causing serious bodily injury is, on the face of the statute, a crime resulting in serious bodily injury. This page describes what the statute says. It does not predict how the government will apply it in any particular case, and no published decision applying this new subparagraph to a DUI fact pattern was located. It is a reason to have the record reviewed before filing anything, not a reason to assume an outcome.

What this page does not say

It does not say a DUI will cost you your case, or that it will not. Both of those statements require the file: the exact statute of conviction, the date, the certified disposition, how many incidents there are, and what has happened since.

It also does not say whether filing is the right move right now. Whether you qualify and whether you should file are different questions, because a filing puts your record in front of the government again.

What can be done before deciding is narrower and more useful: pull the certified disposition from the criminal court. That means the paperwork, not the memory of what happened. Then read it against the statutory period that applies to you.