Fact check: What are the grounds for deporting a green card holder in the US?

1. What proponents and legal guides repeatedly claim about deportation triggers — the headline risks

Legal summaries and immigration‑service guides converge on a core set of deportability triggers: criminal convictions (especially aggravated felonies and crimes of moral turpitude), drug offenses, sex‑offender registration failures, and fraud or misrepresentation at entry or in immigration processes. These categories appear across contemporary sources, which describe aggravated felonies as broad and increasingly inclusive of nonviolent offenses, creating severe immigration consequences even for seemingly minor crimes ^{[1] [7] [2]}. Recent publications highlight that the statutory framework (I.N.A. Section 237) and case law expansions mean that a conviction that may seem trivial under criminal law can nonetheless be dispositive for immigration status, and that some noncriminal acts — like not notifying authorities of address changes or claiming citizenship improperly — also trigger removal ^{[1] [8] [6]}. This convergence of sources underscores the high sensitivity of immigration status to both criminal and administrative conduct.

2. How criminal categories are described and why they matter — aggravated felonies versus moral turpitude

Sources differentiate aggravated felonies from crimes of moral turpitude in ways that matter for relief and detention. Aggravated felonies are portrayed as particularly severe because they often eliminate eligibility for cancellation of removal and other discretionary relief, and their statutory definition has expanded to include many offenses that are not violent, which legal commentators warn increases deportation risk for lawful residents ^{[7] [2]}. By contrast, crimes of moral turpitude can be more fact‑specific but still trigger inadmissibility or deportability depending on timing and sentence. Multiple accounts note that immigration consequences hinge on the immigration characterization of the offense, not solely on the criminal label, so specialist legal analysis is routinely recommended ^{[2] [4]}. The sources collectively indicate the practical danger that routine pleas or misdemeanor convictions can produce disproportionate immigration results.

3. Non‑criminal grounds and administrative pitfalls that often surprise green card holders

Beyond criminality, authoritative guides list administrative and conduct‑based grounds: fraud or misrepresentation at entry, marriage fraud, failure to maintain required registrations (e.g., sex‑offender registration), and certain uses of public benefits can prompt removal proceedings. Several sources note that being inadmissible at the time of entry, even if later granted a green card, remains a ground for deportation if uncovered, and registration failures or misstatements in immigration filings are actionable ^{[8] [6] [3]}. One source specifically calls out marriage fraud and helping others enter the country illegally as triggers, while another highlights that reliance on need‑based public benefits within five years of entry has been cited historically as a basis for questioning admissibility or adjustment—an issue flagged in practice guides ^{[8] [6]}. These materials make clear that routine administrative errors or past misrepresentations can carry removal risk comparable to criminal offenses.

4. Procedural realities and timing — when removal is initiated and what relief might exist

Deportation proceedings typically begin with a Notice to Appear and may be adjudicated before an immigration judge; critical procedural facts affect relief eligibility. For example, cancellation of removal for permanent residents requires at least five years as an LPR and seven years continuous U.S. residence after admission, and the period of continuous presence may stop upon issuance of a Notice to Appear or upon certain criminal conduct, narrowing eligibility markedly ^{[5] [3]}. Sources emphasize that some convictions lead to mandatory detention or statutory bars to relief, while others allow discretionary forms of relief depending on equities presented. Legal observers advise that outcomes depend on precise statutory classification of the offense and the interaction of timing rules, underscoring the importance of timely legal counsel ^{[4] [5]}.

5. Divergent emphases and policy context — what different sources stress and why that matters

While all sources agree on core deportability grounds, they diverge in emphasis: advocacy and legal‑aid outlets prioritize practical defense options and caution about overbroad application of aggravated‑felony labels, whereas government‑oriented summaries stress statutory categories and procedural triggers ^{[4] [7] [1]}. Some pieces highlight public‑benefit policies or marriage fraud as areas of policy contention, indicating potential agenda‑driven framing depending on institutional perspective. Recent 2025 analyses reiterate the same statutory categories but stress that evolving enforcement priorities and case law interpretations materially affect real‑world outcomes, so the consistent factual takeaway is that green card status does not insulate holders from removal for a broad array of criminal and administrative grounds, and nuanced legal analysis is required in each case ^{[3] [8]}.