Criminal Grounds of Inadmissibility (Exclusion)

Aliens who have been convicted of, or who admit to having committed, or who admit to committing acts which constitute the essential elements of a crime involving moral turpitude, other than purely political offenses are excludable under INA §212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I).

in absence of more context

Literal translation.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 hr (2015-01-29 18:05:38 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Criminal Code, Article 29 (the judge has the authority to act sua sponte at any time during the process in favour of the defendant, if he/she finds any ***cause of exclusion of the crime***).
https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/18130/3/Ag...

In law, an absolute defence is a factual circumstance or argument that, if proven, will end the litigation in favor of the defendant. The concept of an absolute defence is not a rigid one. Statutes frequently use the term merely as a synonym to "full" or "complete". It is more often used, however, as a term of art in both criminal and civil law to refer to an underlying set of facts and laws, not raised by the complaint or indictment, which will require the defendant's dismissal even if the factual allegations of the complaining pleading are true.

Another characteristic of an absolute defence is that, once it is pled and proven, it is not subject to mitigation or collateral attack.

Examples of absolute defences include

Truth of an allegedly libelous statement (in modern defamation): a person cannot be made to pay damages for a defamatory statement, if the person can show that the statement is true (even if the statement is damaging, and the person said it in bad faith). This is the case in some jurisdictions, including the United States, but not in others, including England and Wales.
Self-defence in a battery case: a person cannot be held criminally liable for battery if they can prove Right of self-defence under certain circumstances (e.g. where retreat was impossible, and where the use of force was not excessive).
Different kinds of immunity can provide an absolute defence. Probably the strongest of these is sovereign immunity -- this is the common law doctrine, followed in many jurisdictions, that the state cannot be sued unless it agrees to waive its immunity, usually by legislation allowing specific claims to be brought.

Use of the word "absolute" sometimes causes confusion, because even in the law "absolute" is sometimes used simply as a synonym for "full" or "complete". As a term or art, however, there are many complete defenses which are not customarily called absolute. Most notably, innocence, while a complete defence to a criminal charge, is not generally termed "absolute", because it involves a material fact of the pleading. On the other hand, double jeopardy is more likely to be termed an absolute defence; an indictment or (other criminal initiating pleading) does not have to state that the defendant has not previously been tried on the crime, but once a defendant shows that he has been previously tried for a crime, his dismissal is required by the US Constitution.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 hr (2015-01-29 18:00:46 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------


Also known as statutory defens(c)es



--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2 hrs (2015-01-29 18:47:16 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------


CAPÍTULO QUINTO CAUSAS DE EXCLUSIÓN DEL DELITO

ARTICULO 33.-
El delito se excluye cuando:
I.- El hecho se realice sin intervención de la voluntad del agente;
II.- Falte alguno de los elementosdel tipo penal de que se trate;
III.- Se obre en cumplimiento de un deber legal o en el ejercicio legítimo de un derecho;
IV.- Se actúe con el consentimiento válido del sujeto pasivo, siempre queel bien jurídico afectado sea de aquéllos de que pueden disponer lícitamente los particulares;
V.- Se obre en defensa de bienes jurídicos, propios o ajenos, contra agresión ilegítima, actual oinminente, siempre que exista necesidad razonable de la defensa empleada para repelerla o impedirla;
VI.- En situación de peligro para un bien jurídico, propio o ajeno, se lesionare otro bien paraevitar un mal mayor, siempre que concurran los siguientes requisitos:
a) a) Que el peligro sea actual o inminente;
b) b) Que el titular del bien salvado no haya provocado dolosamente
el peligro; y
c)c) Que no exista otro medio practicable y menos perjudicial.
No operará esta justificante en los delitos derivados del ncumplimiento de sus obligaciones, cuando las personas responsables tengan eldeber legal de afrontar el peligro;
VII.- Al momento de realizar el hecho típico y por causa de enfermedad mental que perturbe gravemente su conciencia, de desarrollo psíquico incompleto o retardadoo de grave perturbación de la conciencia sin base patológica, el agente no tenga la capacidad
de comprender el carácter ilícito de aquél o de conducirse de acuerdo con esa comprensión.
Cuando elagente sólo haya poseído en grado moderado la capacidad a que se refiere el párrafo anterior, se estará a lo dispuesto en el artículo 35;
VIII.- Se realice la acción o la omisión bajo un errorinvencible:
a) a) Sobre alguno de los elementos esenciales que integran el tipo
penal; o
b) b) Respecto de la ilicitud de la conducta, ya sea porque el sujeto
desconozca la existencia de la ley o el... [continua]

See West's Spanish-English Legal Dictionary - the entire phrase is translated there just as "justification" but your sentence might work better with "grounds for justification of the crime".

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 day46 mins (2015-01-30 17:24:27 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Based on feedback, "grounds for justification" is a better solution than my original suggestion.