You are in removal proceedings, you have lived in the United States for more than ten years, and your lawyer has mentioned cancellation of removal. Then comes the part that worries people most: the judge must also find that you are a person of good moral character. What does that mean in immigration court, how far back does the judge look, and what can sink it? As of November 2026, the answer comes from one statute, a short list of automatic bars, and Board of Immigration Appeals decisions from 2025 and 2026 that show how strictly the rules are being applied.
This article covers good moral character in the non-permanent resident (Form EOIR-42B) case only. For the four requirements, hardship, and how a case moves through court, start with our guide to cancellation of removal, the 10-year rule and the hardship standard.
The Statute: What Good Moral Character Means in a 42B Case
INA 240A(b)(1), 8 USC 1229b(b)(1), allows an immigration judge to cancel removal and grant a green card to a person who is not a permanent resident if four things are true. The person (A) has been physically present in the United States for a continuous period of at least ten years; (B) "has been a person of good moral character during such period"; (C) has not been convicted of certain offenses; and (D) shows that removal would cause exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a U.S. citizen or permanent resident spouse, parent, or child.
The statute never defines good moral character in positive terms. Instead, INA 101(f), 8 USC 1101(f), lists who cannot be found to have it. That gives you two questions. First, does a listed bar apply during the required period? If so, the case ends on that element, however strong your family ties. Second, if none applies, does the judge still find, looking at your whole record, that you lacked good moral character? You carry the burden of proof on both.
Naturalization uses the same definition but different rules and a different decision maker; our article on good moral character for the N-400 covers USCIS's side. In court, the immigration judge decides and Board precedent controls.
The Ten-Year Window Runs Back From the Judge's Decision
This is the most misunderstood part of the requirement. Many people assume it is the same ten years used for physical presence, which stops when the Notice to Appear is served. It is not.
In Matter of Ortega-Cabrera, 23 I&N Dec. 793 (BIA 2005), the Board held that a cancellation application is a continuing one for purposes of moral character. The ten years are "calculated backward from the date on which the application is finally resolved by an Immigration Judge or the Board." In other words, the window ends on the day of the final administrative decision, which may be years after you were served and years after you filed. It remains good law, and the Board applied it again in Matter of C-A-R-R-, 29 I&N Dec. 13 (BIA 2025), and Matter of L-L-R-, 29 I&N Dec. 799 (BIA 2026).
The Third Circuit, which covers Pennsylvania and New Jersey, agrees. In Mejia-Castanon v. Attorney General, 931 F.3d 224 (3d Cir. 2019), the court held that the stop-time rule does not apply to good moral character, and that the relevant time is "the ten-year period prior to the final administrative decision on an alien's application for cancellation of removal." That decision deferred to the Board under Chevron, which Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024), overruled, but Loper Bright left earlier Chevron-based holdings subject to statutory stare decisis. As of November 2026, Mejia-Castanon is still the rule here.
Three practical consequences follow:
- Conduct during the case counts. An arrest, a DUI, or a false statement while your case is pending, even during an appeal, falls inside the window.
- Old conduct can age out. An incident more than ten years before the final decision may fall outside the window. It can still matter for discretion.
- Physical presence works differently. That clock is cut off by the Notice to Appear or certain offenses; see our post on continuous physical presence for 10-year cancellation.
The Automatic Bars in INA 101(f)
INA 101(f) says no person shall be found to have good moral character who, during the required period, is or was any of the following. Two apply no matter when they happened.
- A habitual drunkard (101(f)(1)).
- A person described in certain inadmissibility grounds (101(f)(3)): crimes involving moral turpitude and controlled substance violations under 212(a)(2)(A), multiple convictions with aggregate sentences of five years or more under 212(a)(2)(B), drug trafficking under 212(a)(2)(C), prostitution under 212(a)(2)(D), alien smuggling under 212(a)(6)(E), and practicing polygamy under 212(a)(10)(A). For the criminal grounds, the offense must have been committed during the period, and there is an exception for a single offense of simple possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana.
- Gambling: income derived principally from illegal gambling, or two or more gambling convictions during the period (101(f)(4) and (5)).
- False testimony given to obtain any immigration benefit (101(f)(6)), discussed in the next section.
- Confinement for 180 days or more, in the aggregate, as a result of conviction during the period, regardless of when the offense was committed (101(f)(7)).
- An aggravated felony conviction at any time (101(f)(8)). This bar has no time limit.
- At any time having engaged in Nazi persecution, genocide, torture, extrajudicial killing, or severe violations of religious freedom (101(f)(9)).
Two features of this list catch people by surprise.
You do not need a conviction. The 101(f)(3) bar reaches offenses "for which such person was convicted or of which he admits the commission." In Matter of C-A-R-R-, the respondent testified that he had sold cocaine in 2023. He was never convicted, but the Board held his admission barred good moral character as a matter of law. What you say on the stand can create the bar.
Jail time counts the way the court counts it. For the 180-day bar, the Third Circuit held in Aguilar v. Attorney General, 107 F.4th 164 (3d Cir. 2024), that "pretrial detention later credited as time served as part of the sentence imposed counts as confinement under § 1101(f)(7)." Months in county jail before a plea can add up to the bar.
The 2026 decision in Matter of L-L-R- shows how far the smuggling ground reaches. A father living here paid a smuggler to bring his 14-year-old son from Guatemala to the border. He argued that the smuggler's job ended at the border and that his son asked for asylum. The Board held that helping someone "to enter or to try to enter the United States in violation of law" was enough, and upheld pretermission. If you paid someone to bring a child north inside your window, it must be analyzed before you file, including any possible waiver.
False Testimony: The Bar You Can Create in the Courtroom
The 101(f)(6) bar applies to "one who has given false testimony for the purpose of obtaining any benefits under this chapter." In Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759 (1988), the Supreme Court held that "testimony" is limited to oral statements made under oath, and that the lie need not matter to the outcome: the bar reaches a person who has "told even the most immaterial of lies with the subjective intent of obtaining immigration or naturalization benefits."
The Board applied that rule to immigration court in Matter of Gomez-Beltran, 26 I&N Dec. 765 (BIA 2016). The respondent listed one conviction on his application and testified to no others, then admitted five more arrests or convictions only as the government's lawyer confronted him with each. The Board held that false testimony before an immigration judge, given to obtain relief, bars good moral character. A lie told at the merits hearing is always inside the window.
The lesson is not to say less. It is that your lawyer must know everything first: every arrest, entry, removal, and prior filing. A bad record disclosed is a discretion problem. A record concealed and then exposed becomes a bar.
Preparing a cancellation case and worried about your record?
Good moral character is judged right up to the final decision, so what you do now still counts. We review your full record, fix what can be fixed, and build the evidence before you take the stand.
Talk to a Removal Defense AttorneyOr call (484) 763-4984
The Catch-All: When the Judge Can Find No Good Moral Character Without a Listed Bar
After the list, INA 101(f) adds: "The fact that any person is not within any of the foregoing classes shall not preclude a finding that for other reasons such person is or was not of good moral character." This catch-all is where most contested 42B cases are decided.
Multiple DUIs. Driving under the influence is not on the list, but in Matter of Castillo-Perez the Attorney General held that "evidence of two or more convictions for driving under the influence during the relevant period establishes a rebuttable presumption that the alien lacked good moral character during that time." The presumption can be overcome only in "an unusual case in which an alien can establish that the multiple convictions were an aberration." As of November 2026, Castillo-Perez remains good law.
The Board has applied the presumption strictly. In Matter of Palma-Olvera, 29 I&N Dec. 355 (BIA 2025), designated as precedent in December 2025, the respondent had two DWI convictions, in 2022 and 2024, both while his case was pending. The judge granted cancellation because he cared for a U.S. citizen son with autism and worked steadily. The Board reversed and ordered him removed: caring for a child and holding a job are not an unusual case, especially where he kept drinking and never sought treatment. In 2025 the Third Circuit, reviewing a case with four DUI arrests in three states over 19 months, held that a good moral character finding is reviewable as the application of a legal standard to established facts, and upheld the denial (Roman Sanchez v. Attorney General, No. 24-2279 (3d Cir. Aug. 15, 2025)).
False claims to citizenship. Checking the "citizen" box on a Form I-9 or registering to vote is not one of the listed 101(f) classes. In Matter of Guadarrama, 24 I&N Dec. 625 (BIA 2008), the Board held that a false claim of citizenship may support a finding of no good moral character under the catch-all, but "does not automatically mandate such a finding." The statute's last sentence also protects a narrow group whose parents were all citizens, who lived here permanently before 16, and who reasonably believed they were citizens. A false claim can also create separate inadmissibility problems.
Other conduct. The naturalization regulation, 8 CFR 316.10(b)(3), treats willful failure to support dependents and other unlawful acts as showing a lack of good moral character absent extenuating circumstances. It governs USCIS, not the judge, but it previews what DHS will raise on cross-examination.
Good Moral Character Is Not the Same as the Criminal Bar or Discretion
A criminal or conduct issue can hit a 42B case in three different places.
The criminal bar in 240A(b)(1)(C). You are also ineligible if convicted of an offense under 212(a)(2), 237(a)(2), or 237(a)(3). This bar has no ten-year window. In Matter of Cortez, 25 I&N Dec. 301 (BIA 2010), the Board held that a crime involving moral turpitude for which a sentence of a year or longer may be imposed bars cancellation under (C) even if it would qualify for the petty offense exception.
Good moral character under 240A(b)(1)(B). The ten-year test above.
Discretion. Even an eligible person must show that cancellation should be granted as a matter of discretion, and DHS has been appealing grants and winning on this ground. In Matter of Gonzalez Jimenez, 29 I&N Dec. 129 (BIA 2025), the Board held that using false or stolen Social Security numbers and providing false information on tax returns weigh against a favorable exercise of discretion, and that a respondent who blames a tax preparer or other professional must show the specific advice given and why relying on it was reasonable. In Matter of Lema Mizhirumbay, 29 I&N Dec. 351 (BIA 2025), the Board reversed a grant where repeated workplace safety violations had led to the deaths of two employees.
So an old theft conviction might fall outside the good moral character window yet still be a (C) bar and a discretion factor.
Common Problems in Lehigh Valley Cases
The same issues come up again and again in Allentown, Bethlehem, Easton, and Reading cases.
DUIs. Whether a Pennsylvania diversion or first-offense outcome counts as a conviction for immigration purposes depends on the record, so bring every court document. One DUI is not a statutory bar, but it will be raised; two within the window trigger the Castillo-Perez presumption.
Taxes and Social Security numbers. Many respondents have worked using a borrowed or invented number. After Gonzalez Jimenez, expect DHS to ask. Filing past-due returns with an ITIN and documenting payment are among the most valuable steps before a merits hearing. Never file anything new that contains a false statement.
Child support. Support paid in full helps on hardship and character. Arrears do the opposite.
False claims and false documents. An I-9 marked "citizen," a voter registration, or a fake green card used for work must be disclosed to your lawyer and analyzed.
Bringing children north. After L-L-R-, any payment to a smuggler for a child or other relative inside the window is a potential bar.
Prior statements. An asylum application, border interview, or visa application will be compared with your testimony. Inconsistencies are not automatically false testimony, but they invite the questions that led to Gomez-Beltran.
Building the Record: Evidence That Proves Good Moral Character
Because you carry the burden, the strongest records include:
- Criminal history from every source: FBI identity history summary, Pennsylvania State Police check, and certified dispositions for every arrest in every state.
- IRS tax transcripts for the full period, with late returns filed and payment plans documented.
- Letters from employers, pastors, teachers, and neighbors, signed and dated, with contact information and specific facts.
- Proof of family support: child support records, school and medical involvement, household bills in your name.
- Rehabilitation evidence: treatment certificates, meeting attendance records, probation completion letters.
Objective proof matters. In Matter of Mata Rodriguez, 30 I&N Dec. 191 (BIA 2026), a green card holder's case, the Board reversed a grant, noting no objective evidence of rehabilitation and no letters from people who knew him. Build the file early and update it before every hearing.
Two practical notes. As of November 2026 the fee for Form EOIR-42B is $1,690 for filings on or after October 1, 2026, under 91 FR 54211 (Aug. 2026); our post on EOIR court fees after October 1, 2026 lists every amount. And INA 240A(e)(1) limits grants to 4,000 per fiscal year, and under 8 CFR 1240.21(c)(1), once a year's grants run out, further decisions are reserved until a number is available in a later fiscal year. A reserved case keeps your good moral character window open longer.
What This Means in the Lehigh Valley
Most Lehigh Valley cancellation cases are heard at the Philadelphia Immigration Court, and New Jersey cases at Newark or Elizabeth. Both states sit in the Third Circuit, so Mejia-Castanon and Aguilar apply directly.
Merits hearings in Philadelphia are often set far in advance, and that wait cuts both ways. It gives you time to file past-due taxes, finish treatment, pay support arrears, and gather letters from Allentown, Bethlehem, Easton, and Reading employers and churches. It also means more time in which a new arrest falls inside the window.
If a prior lawyer let a cancellation case fail on good moral character, that may deserve a second look. Our cancellation of removal practice and removal defense team handle new cases and reviews.
Frequently Asked Questions
How many years of good moral character do I need for cancellation of removal?
Ten years. Under Matter of Ortega-Cabrera and the Third Circuit's Mejia-Castanon decision, the ten years are counted backward from the final decision of the immigration judge or the Board, not from the date you were served or filed, so conduct during your case counts.
Does one DUI make me ineligible?
Not automatically. A single DUI is not one of the listed bars in INA 101(f), but the judge will weigh it. Two or more DUI convictions in the ten-year period create a presumption that you lack good moral character under Matter of Castillo-Perez, and the Board has applied that presumption strictly.
Can something I was never convicted of still bar me?
Yes. INA 101(f)(3) reaches offenses you admit committing. In Matter of C-A-R-R- (BIA 2025), a respondent's own testimony that he sold cocaine barred good moral character without any conviction. Talk to your lawyer before you testify or sign a declaration.
What happens if I lied in a past immigration application or interview?
It depends on what was said and how. The false testimony bar covers oral statements under oath made to obtain an immigration benefit during the ten-year window. Older or written misstatements can still affect credibility and discretion. Disclose everything to your lawyer so it can be addressed, never concealed.
Does having unpaid taxes or using a false Social Security number disqualify me?
They are not listed bars, but the Board held in 2025 that false or stolen Social Security numbers and false tax information weigh against discretion. Filing past-due returns and correcting the record before your hearing can make a real difference.
Get Help With Good Moral Character in Your Cancellation Case
Good moral character is the one cancellation requirement you can still strengthen, or damage, while your case is pending. Lehigh Valley Immigration Law LLC prepares EOIR-42B cases across Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York, from the first records request to appeal. We offer a free bilingual consultation to review your record and tell you honestly where you stand. Call (484) 763-4984 or contact us online. No outcome can be guaranteed in any immigration case, but a complete, honest record is the part of the case you control.