"Beyond a reasonable doubt" standard applies for a crime to be an Immigration Conviction

The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) stated in Matter of Eslamizar, 23 I&N Dec. 684 (BIA 2004) "It is a bedrock principle of the Constitution of the United States that each element of an offense or crime must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.  E.g., Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000); In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970). It is beyond debate, therefore, that the respondent, who was found “guilty” under the lesser standard of a preponderance of the evidence, was not found guilty of his “violation” in a true criminal proceeding”

Headnote: An alien found guilty of a “violation” under Oregon law in a proceeding conducted pursuant to section 153.076 of the Oregon Revised Statutes does not have a “conviction” for immigration purposes under section 101(a)(48)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(48)(A) (2000).