The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that a disorderly persons offense in New Jersey constitutes a conviction for immigration purposes. In so doing, the BIA analyzed which rights a defendant had in a disorderly persons proceeding. The BIA noted the following protections must be in place for a proceeding to result in a conviction: oof beyond a reasonable doubt; and the rights to confront one’s accuser, a speedy and public trial, notice of the accusations, proof beyond a reasonable doubt; and the rights to confront one’s accuser, a speedy and public trial, notice of the accusations, compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in one’s favor, and against being put in jeopardy twice for the same offense. “In short, we determine whether a proceeding is “criminal” by reference to those rights of criminal procedure guaranteed by the Constitution—as incorporated against the States by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment—and which are applicable without limitation in all criminal prosecutions.”
“However, not all constitutional rights of criminal procedure are required in every criminal proceeding. Some rights are contingent. For example, the right to a jury trial applies only if the charged offense is deemed “serious,” and the right to counsel applies only if a conviction can result in loss of liberty. Because contingent rights are not required in every criminal proceeding, their absence cannot be dispositive with respect to whether a particular proceeding is criminal in nature. Similarly, the absence of a right to indictment by grand jury is immaterial, because that right has not been made applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment.”
The full text of Matter of S. Wong can be found here:
https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1488596/download