a. Negotiating a Plea to an Offense that is Not a Crime of Violence
As perhaps the safest alternative, negotiate a plea to an offense that is not a Crime of Violence. This strategy involves confirmation from an
immigration attorney or expert source that the crime is not a COV. One such example is RCW 9A.36.031, third degree assault, under the (f) negligence prong. Requiring domestic violence counseling as a condition of probation for conviction of an offense that is not a "crime of violence" will not make the conviction a deportable domestic violence offense. For a detailed analysis and alternatives, see Chapter Nine: Analysis of Crimes of Violence and Strategies for Avoiding COV Convictions.

b. Crafting the Record of Conviction
The Record of Conviction is of crucial importance in a noncitizen’s case and must be crafted carefully. The guiding mantra in domestic violence
cases is always to plead generally, being careful not to make admissions of fact which make it clear the crime was a case of domestic violence. It is advisable not to make admissions to the relationship between the defendant and victim,
especially if victim and defendant have different last names. It is also highly desirable to craft pleas and conviction records that are silent as to victims’ ages if, factually, the victims were under 18. See Chapter Four: Carefully Crafting a
Noncitizen’s Plea for more on crafting the ROC.

c. Negotiating Pleas to Crimes Against Property Instead of Persons
The immigration statute is limited to crimes against persons. Where counsel can negotiate to a crime against property, such as malicious mischief under RCW 9A.48.090, there is a strong argument against deportability.

d. Crafting a Record of Conviction for Charge of Harassment²¹⁶
Crafting a record of conviction for harassment that could avoid deportation would require negotiating a plea statement and amended
charging document that only recite the language of the statutoryprovision at issue and do not specify actions by the defendant that
involved threats to use force. Negotiating a plea pursuant to the guidelines outlined in this treatise is an alternative worth pursuing. Practically speaking though, counsel must warn the defendant that immigration authorities may still consider the harassment to constitute a domestic violence offense for immigration purposes. Thus, the noncitizen could still end up in removal proceedings but, a carefully crafted ROC and plea preserves a strong argument
to contest deportation (ideally with aid of immigration counsel). Probably the best option for a plea under the harassment statute is to RCW 9A.46.020(1)(a)(ii), for threats to damage property, with a sentence under 365 days. This should avoid deportation under the DV ground since it also allows the argument that the offense involved a property crime, not a crime against a person.²¹⁷ A sentence of less than 365 days avoids any possibility of an aggravated felony crime of violence charge.²¹⁸

^{216 Harassment under RCW 9A.46.020(1).
217 Since harassment under RCW 9A.46.020(1)(a)(ii)can be fairly analogized to a threat to commit
malicious mischief—an offense known to not be a CIMT— there is an additional argument that this
subsection also may not be a CIMT, since a threat to do something not “turpitudinous,” should not itself be
turpitudinous.
218 There are good arguments that a threat to “cause physical damage to property” does not require the use
of force (e.g.: RCW 9A.48.100’s definition does not require damage by force); but, with a sentence of
under 365 days the issue does not arise for aggravated felony purposes.}