Other cases find that a conviction exists where the state considers the defendant to have been convicted for some purpose besides the imposition of probation. See Matter of Zangwill, 18 I. N. Dec. 22 (1981); Matter of Westman, 17 I. N. Dec. 50 (1979); Matter of Robinson, 16 I. N. Dec. 762 (1979); Matter of Rehman, 15 I. N. Dec. 505 (1975); Matter of Pikkarainen, 10 I. N. Dec. 401 (1963); Matter of A---- F----, 8 I. N. Dec. 429 (1959). Indeed, one case finds a conviction where the state says successful probation "annuls" the conviction for every purpose except potential future sentence enhancement.
Until the BIA decision in Ozkok, the INS consistently applied this same test to a myriad of immigration matters for over thirty years. See, e.g., Matter of Garcia, Int. Dec. 2995 (BIA 1985); Matter of Zangwill, 18 I N Dec. 22 (BIA 1981); Matter of Seda, 17 I N Dec. 550 (BIA 1980); Matter of Robinson, 16 I N Dec. 762 (BIA 1979); Matter of Varagianis, 16 I N Dec. 48 (BIA 1976); Matter of Pikkarainen, 10 I N Dec. 401 (BIA 1963). In Ozkok, however, the BIA rejected this well-established test as too narrow and undesirably subject to the vagaries of state law.