On the immigration side of your questions, a state conviction is generally a conviction for immigration purposes if it 1) there was a finding or admission of guilt and 2) there was an imposition of some type of limitation of your liberty.

So the important question is whether the Colorado deferred prosecution requires a plea of guilt or a finding of guilty by the Crim Judge for them to then give you probation to wait out.

If so, then it's a conviction.

If not, then it's not a conviction for immigration purposes.

Also generally, a conviction for a violation of a controlled substance will make you inadmissible forever. The only way out of it is if you can apply for a 212(h) waiver of inadmissibility if you can prove that your spouse, parent or child that is a US citizen or green card holder would suffer EXTREME HARDSHIPS if you are denied the visa. Tough one.

Now, one final thing. If you already have your J1 and you're coming in the future. I strongly suggest that you fly into the US by touching down in the Ninth Circuit (Seattle, San Francisco, LA). This is because federal immigration law in the Ninth Circuit has been interpreted a little different. Here, a state rehabilitative statute like the one in Colorado can be considered good for immigration because it is similar to the Federal First Offender Act. In the Ninth Circuit, the Court of Appeals has stated that the FFOA and a state similar statute clean out any first conviction of simple possession. So, here, you would be ok. Funny!

Now, as to whether you were illegally searched, is is most definitely a question for a criminal attorney helping you out to get out of the conviction in the first place and has no bearing on the immigration side. All the immigration side is concerned is whether you got a conviction or not.

I wish you good luck.

Yes, if you admit guilt, then you have a conviction for immigration purposes and sealing would do nothing.

You got it right, the whole thing with the Ninth Circuit is a little loophole that you could have exploited if you already had the visa, because when you fly in at the airport, the deciding officer would be in the 9th Circuit and would have to apply the (very forgiving) 9thCir law.

Unfortunately, since you still have to apply for the Visa at the US consulate, they will apply the regular (tough) law and will consider a deferred adjudication with an admission of guilt as a conviction and there will be nothing you can do to change that.

So you must make sure you do not admit guilt nor are found guilty. But, I guess you could try to get the case dropped because you're out of the country, I don't know, I'm not a criminal attorney.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. I hope this clarifies more and I wish you best of luck.

You probably would be able to enter the US on a visa waiver. But when you apply for the J1 they will ask you if you have ever been arrested/charged for any crime, so you will have to tell them that. Then they will probably put the adjudication of the J1 until the criminal issue is resolved.

It's an arrest.

As to whether it's an infraction or a misdemeanor, one needs to look at the ticket, find in the Colorado Penal Code and see what it says. I don't have enough information based on the above information to determine if it was an infraction or a misdemeanor.

Ok, it appears that a class 2 petty offense may be an infraction and not a "crime". There are three issues to be considered 1) right to a jury trial; 2) right to counsel; and 3) standard of proof.

1) the right to a jury trial seems to exist in a statutory basis, which can be sufficiently close to a crime.

2) there is no right to counsel, which can and must be argued that is the very basis of all other guarantees and its absence makes the class 2 petty offense sufficiently distinct from a crime; and

3) without further research I cannot detect easily any difference in the standard of proof.

So there appears to be sufficient differences to argue that it is an infraction and not a "crime" so you can say in your application honestly that you never had a crime and argue with the officer that it is an infraction. You are arguing pretty much what happened in Matter of Eslamizar:

http://www.justice.gov/eoir/vll/intdec/vol23/3502.pdf

Read it to understand a little better on how you can argue the fact that there is no right to counsel and maybe a lower level of proof (need more research on this) to argue it's not a "crime" so it's not a "conviction". Ok, this is all a lot of information. If you need more than this, research is involved and I suggest you hire a lawyer from this point on if you'd like. I wish you best of luck.