Immigration Consequences of Massachusetts Criminal Charges

Deportability, Inadmissibility, the CWOF as a Federal Conviction, Visa Revocation, and the Right to Withdraw a Plea Under Padilla v. Kentucky

For non-citizens, including lawful permanent residents, F-1 and J-1 students, H-1B and O-1 professionals, B-1/B-2 visitors, TN status holders, and persons with pending immigration applications or DACA status, a Massachusetts criminal charge carries immigration consequences that can be more severe, more permanent, and faster-moving than the criminal penalties themselves. Deportation, visa revocation, inadmissibility, and denial of naturalization can all flow from a single criminal charge, a CWOF, or even an arraignment that results in a later dismissal.

For the dispositions that avoid a conviction entirely, from pretrial probation and diversion to an outright dismissal, see dismissals, not guilty verdicts, and the alternatives to a guilty plea.

For a non-citizen, the safest outcome is usually an outright dismissal or a no-admission disposition rather than a plea that counts as a conviction. Our companion page explains how criminal cases get dismissed in Massachusetts and why a dismissal matters so much when immigration status is at stake.

The intersection of Massachusetts criminal law and federal immigration law is among the most technically demanding areas of criminal defense. Under Padilla v. Kentucky (559 U.S. 356, 2010), defense counsel has a constitutional obligation under the Sixth Amendment to advise a non-citizen client of the specific immigration consequences of a guilty plea before the plea is accepted. The same obligation extends, under the best practices established by Padilla and its progeny, to a CWOF with its admission to sufficient facts. Every proposed disposition in a non-citizen defendant’s case must be assessed for immigration neutrality before acceptance. Contact Serpa Law Office at 617.936.0201 for a confidential consultation.

The CWOF as a Federal Conviction: The Single Most Important Rule

The single most misunderstood immigration consequence of Massachusetts criminal law is the treatment of the Continuance Without a Finding (CWOF) by federal immigration authorities.

Under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(48)(A), the federal definition of “conviction” includes any case in which the alien has entered a plea of guilty, a plea of nolo contendere, or has admitted sufficient facts to warrant a finding of guilt, and the judge has ordered some form of punishment, penalty, or restraint on the alien’s liberty. A Massachusetts CWOF satisfies both prongs of this definition: the defendant admits to sufficient facts at the CWOF hearing, and the judge imposes probationary conditions. Federal immigration authorities treat a Massachusetts CWOF identically to a guilty plea or jury verdict for all purposes: deportability, inadmissibility, and bar to naturalization. The Massachusetts classification of the CWOF as a “non-conviction” has no effect on the federal immigration analysis.

Under Matter of Punu (22 I&N Dec. 224, BIA 1998), the Board of Immigration Appeals held that a Massachusetts CWOF constitutes a conviction for immigration purposes under the § 1101(a)(48)(A) definition. This holding has been consistently applied in the First Circuit and in Massachusetts cases. A non-citizen who accepts a CWOF on a domestic violence charge, a drug offense, or a crime of moral turpitude is convicted of that offense for every purpose of the Immigration and Nationality Act, regardless of how the CWOF is classified under Massachusetts law.

Pretrial probation under M.G.L. c. 276, § 87, which involves no admission of any kind, is generally immigration-neutral and does not satisfy the § 1101(a)(48)(A) conviction definition in most circumstances. When a CWOF would have adverse immigration consequences, defense counsel must negotiate for pretrial probation rather than accept the CWOF as a favorable resolution. See: CWOF, Pretrial Probation, and Diversion in Massachusetts.

Deportable Offenses Under the Immigration and Nationality Act

A non-citizen who is already present in the United States, including lawful permanent residents, faces deportability under 8 U.S.C. § 1227 if convicted of certain offenses. The following categories of Massachusetts criminal charges most commonly trigger deportability:

Crimes of Domestic Violence (8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i))

Any conviction or CWOF for a “crime of domestic violence” as defined under 18 U.S.C. § 16 renders a non-citizen deportable. Under United States v. Castleman (572 U.S. 157, 2014), a “crime of domestic violence” includes any offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against a family or household member. Assault and battery on a family or household member under M.G.L. c. 265, § 13M qualifies. A CWOF on this charge renders a non-citizen deportable under § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i), identical to a guilty plea or verdict. Strangulation under M.G.L. c. 265, § 15D is a qualifying crime of domestic violence. Intimidation of a witness under M.G.L. c. 268, § 13B charged in a domestic context may also qualify depending on the specific facts.

Violation of a Protection Order (8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(ii))

A conviction for violation of a qualifying protection order, including a Massachusetts 209A abuse prevention order under M.G.L. c. 209A, § 7, is a separate and independent ground of deportability under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(ii). This ground applies when the order protects a family or household member and the conviction is for engaging in conduct that violates the portion of the order that involves protection against credible threats of violence, repeated harassment, or bodily injury. The deportability ground applies to a 258E harassment prevention order violation as well if the order protects a qualifying family or household member.

Controlled Substance Offenses (8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i))

Any conviction or CWOF for a violation of any law relating to a controlled substance renders a non-citizen deportable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i). The only exception is a single offense involving possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana for personal use. All other drug offenses under M.G.L. c. 94C, including possession of any Schedule I or Schedule II controlled substance, possession of cocaine, possession of MDMA, and possession of prescription medications without a valid prescription, trigger deportability. Drug distribution and trafficking convictions also qualify as aggravated felonies in most circumstances, triggering mandatory deportation with no discretionary relief available.

Under Moncrieffe v. Holder (569 U.S. 184, 2013), the Supreme Court held that a state drug distribution offense is not categorically an aggravated felony drug trafficking crime unless the state offense necessarily involves punishment as a felony under the federal Controlled Substances Act. Defense counsel must analyze whether the specific Massachusetts drug charge is categorical as an aggravated felony under the Taylor v. United States categorical approach, which requires matching the elements of the Massachusetts offense to the generic federal definition.

Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude (CIMT) (8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A))

Two deportability grounds apply to crimes involving moral turpitude:

• Single CIMT committed within five years of admission for which a sentence of one year or longer may be imposed (8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i))
• Two or more CIMTs not arising from a single scheme of criminal misconduct, at any time after admission (8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii))

CIMTs under Massachusetts law include: larceny and shoplifting (M.G.L. c. 266, §§ 30–30A). The Supreme Court held in Descamps v. United States (570 U.S. 254, 2013) and Mathis v. United States (579 U.S. 500, 2016) that the categorical approach requires examining the statute’s elements, not the underlying facts; assault with intent to commit a felony; fraud offenses; and crimes involving dishonesty or false statements. Massachusetts simple assault and battery (M.G.L. c. 265, § 13A) has generated conflicting case law on CIMT status: whether it qualifies depends on whether the offense necessarily involves intent to cause harm or merely the commission of an offensive touching. Defense counsel must analyze each charge under the categorical and modified categorical approach.

Aggravated Felonies (8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii))

Aggravated felony convictions result in mandatory deportation with no discretionary relief available: no cancellation of removal, no asylum, no adjustment of status. The aggravated felony category under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43) includes:

• Drug trafficking: distribution or possession with intent to distribute any controlled substance (M.G.L. c. 94C, §§ 32–32B), if the Massachusetts offense is categorical as a felony under the federal CSA
• Crimes of violence with a sentence of one year or more imposed (18 U.S.C. § 16), including assault with a dangerous weapon, strangulation, and armed robbery
• Theft offenses with a sentence of one year or more imposed: larceny over $1,200 under M.G.L. c. 266, § 30 may qualify if a sentence of one year or more is imposed or suspended
• Firearms trafficking (M.G.L. c. 269, § 10) in some circumstances
• Sexual abuse of a minor: any Massachusetts conviction for indecent assault and battery on a person under 14 (M.G.L. c. 265, § 13B) or rape of a child (M.G.L. c. 265, § 22A)
• Fraud or deceit offenses in which the loss to the victim exceeds $10,000

The categorical approach analysis under Taylor v. United States (495 U.S. 575, 1990) and Descamps v. United States (570 U.S. 254, 2013) is essential in every aggravated felony analysis. The elements of the Massachusetts offense must be compared to the generic federal definition. If the Massachusetts offense is broader than the generic definition (i.e., it can be committed in ways that would not constitute an aggravated felony under federal law), it is not categorically an aggravated felony. This analysis requires experienced criminal defense counsel who is familiar with both Massachusetts criminal law and federal immigration law.

Inadmissibility vs. Deportability: A Critical Distinction

The immigration consequences of a criminal charge depend on whether the non-citizen is seeking admission to the United States (inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182) or is already present (deportability under 8 U.S.C. § 1227). The categories partially overlap but are not identical, and the distinction matters:

• A lawful permanent resident who travels outside the United States after a criminal charge, even for a brief trip, is seeking admission upon return and faces the inadmissibility grounds, even if they would not be deportable under § 1227
• The inadmissibility ground for crimes involving moral turpitude (8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)) applies to a single CIMT for which a maximum sentence of one year or more may be imposed, a broader standard than the deportability ground, which requires that a sentence of one year or longer may be imposed for the offense. A misdemeanor CIMT with a maximum sentence of one year may trigger inadmissibility even if it does not trigger deportability
• The “petty offense exception” under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(ii)(II) provides that a non-citizen is not inadmissible for a single CIMT if the maximum possible penalty did not exceed imprisonment for one year and the non-citizen was not sentenced to imprisonment for more than six months. This exception does not apply to deportability

For non-citizens with any criminal charge, international travel must be assessed with an immigration attorney before departure. Traveling abroad without clearing the inadmissibility question can result in exclusion at the port of entry and permanent separation from family members in the United States.

Immigration Consequences by Visa Category

F-1 and J-1 Student Visa Holders

International students on F-1 and J-1 visas face the fastest-moving immigration consequences of any visa category. The U.S. State Department has authority to prudentially revoke an F-1 or J-1 visa upon notice of an arrest: before any conviction, before any court date, before any finding of guilt. A visa revocation requires the student to leave the United States immediately and apply for a new visa before returning, typically from their home country.

SEVIS (Student and Exchange Visitor Information System) notification occurs when a student is arrested or when a criminal case is opened. The designated school official (DSO) at the student’s university has access to SEVIS records and may become aware of the arrest independently of any court notification. A SEVIS termination based on a criminal charge results in immediate loss of student status, regardless of the stage of the criminal case.

The most effective protection for an F-1 or J-1 student is preventing the case from reaching arraignment through a clerk-magistrate hearing denial. A denied complaint creates no public court record, no SEVIS notification through official court channels, and no basis for a visa revocation based on the criminal proceeding. Courts where F-1 and J-1 students appear most frequently include Cambridge District Court (Harvard, MIT, Lesley), BMC Central and Brighton (BU, Northeastern, Suffolk, Emerson), Newton District Court (BC), Somerville District Court (Tufts), and Waltham District Court (Brandeis, Bentley). See: College and University Student Criminal Defense and Student Criminal Defense FAQ.

H-1B, L-1, O-1, and TN Status Holders

Professionals on H-1B, L-1, O-1, and TN status face deportability under the same grounds as permanent residents for covered offenses. For H-1B holders, a criminal conviction can also trigger employer notification obligations and constitute a ground for termination of the H-1B petition by the sponsoring employer, independent of any immigration enforcement action. An employer who learns of a felony conviction may withdraw the H-1B petition, leaving the employee without status.

TN status holders, Canadian and Mexican nationals in professional categories under the USMCA, are particularly vulnerable because TN status is granted at the border and can be revoked at the next entry attempt. A TN holder who travels abroad after a criminal charge may be denied re-admission on TN grounds even if the charge has been resolved favorably.

For licensed professionals on employment visas (physicians on J-1 waivers, engineers on H-1B status, financial analysts on O-1 visas), the criminal charge creates simultaneous exposure on three fronts: the criminal case, the licensing board proceeding, and the immigration proceeding. All three must be managed from the moment of the charge. See: Criminal Defense for Licensed Professionals in Massachusetts and Licensed Professionals Criminal Defense FAQ.

Lawful Permanent Residents (Green Card Holders)

Lawful permanent residents face the broadest exposure to deportability because the full range of deportability grounds under 8 U.S.C. § 1227 applies to them after the point of admission. A permanent resident convicted of an aggravated felony faces mandatory deportation with no discretionary relief (no cancellation of removal, no asylum, no adjustment of status), regardless of how long they have been in the United States or how strong their equities are. A permanent resident convicted of a domestic violence offense, a drug offense, or two CIMTs at any time after admission is deportable.

Permanent residents who have resided in the United States for at least ten years may be eligible for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a) if they can demonstrate ten years of continuous residence, good moral character for those ten years, and that their removal would cause exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying U.S. citizen or permanent resident spouse, parent, or child. Cancellation of removal is not available to persons convicted of aggravated felonies or offenses listed as bars to good moral character under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f).

DACA Recipients

DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) recipients have conditional protection from deportation and work authorization, but DACA status can be terminated based on criminal activity. Under DACA program guidelines, a felony conviction, a significant misdemeanor (including DUI/OUI, domestic violence, sexual abuse, burglary, unlawful possession or use of a firearm, or drug sale), or three or more non-significant misdemeanors are grounds for DACA termination. A CWOF on a domestic violence charge or an OUI is treated as a conviction for DACA termination purposes under the program guidelines. A clerk-magistrate hearing denial that prevents any arraignment or criminal charge from issuing is the most effective protection for a DACA recipient facing a Massachusetts criminal charge.

B-1/B-2 Visitors and Undocumented Persons

Visitors on B-1/B-2 status and undocumented persons face immediate enforcement exposure upon a criminal arrest. A B-1/B-2 visitor who is arrested in Massachusetts will typically have their visa reviewed by the State Department, and a criminal charge, even a misdemeanor, can result in visa revocation before the criminal case is resolved. Undocumented persons who are arrested and fingerprinted in Massachusetts are entered into federal immigration databases, and ICE has authority to lodge a detainer with the local jail or house of correction requesting notification before release. Massachusetts is a sanctuary state, and state and local law enforcement in most jurisdictions do not honor ICE detainers, but the federal immigration enforcement mechanism is triggered by the arrest regardless.

The Categorical Approach: Matching Massachusetts Offenses to Federal Definitions

Whether a Massachusetts criminal conviction triggers immigration consequences depends not just on what the defendant did, but on the elements of the Massachusetts offense and whether those elements match the generic federal definition of the triggering offense. This is the categorical approach, established in Taylor v. United States (495 U.S. 575, 1990) and refined in Descamps v. United States (570 U.S. 254, 2013) and Mathis v. United States (579 U.S. 500, 2016).

Under the categorical approach, a court examining whether a Massachusetts conviction is an aggravated felony, a CIMT, or a crime of domestic violence looks only at the statutory elements of the Massachusetts offense, not the underlying facts of the specific case. If the Massachusetts statute criminalizes conduct that is broader than the generic federal definition (i.e., the statute can be violated in ways that would not constitute the triggering offense under federal law), the Massachusetts offense is not categorically a qualifying offense.

Practical examples in Massachusetts criminal defense: Massachusetts assault under M.G.L. c. 265, § 13A can be committed by a reckless act, but the federal crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 16 requires the use of physical force, not merely reckless conduct. Under Borden v. United States (593 U.S. 420, 2021), a reckless offense cannot categorically be a crime of violence. Therefore, a Massachusetts assault conviction, which encompasses reckless conduct, may not categorically be a crime of violence for aggravated felony purposes. The modified categorical approach applies when the statute is divisible, listing alternative elements in the disjunctive, and allows the court to examine the record of conviction (the charging document, the plea colloquy, the jury instructions) to determine which alternative the defendant was convicted of.

Padilla v. Kentucky: The Constitutional Right to Immigration Advice

The Padilla Obligation

Under Padilla v. Kentucky (559 U.S. 356, 2010), the Sixth Amendment requires defense counsel to advise a non-citizen client of the specific immigration consequences of a guilty plea before the plea is entered. Where the immigration consequence is clear, as it is when a non-citizen accepts a CWOF on a domestic violence charge and becomes deportable under § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i), defense counsel must specifically advise of that consequence. Where the consequence is unclear or complex, defense counsel must advise the client that the plea may have adverse immigration consequences and recommend that the client seek specialized immigration counsel.

The Padilla obligation extends beyond guilty pleas to CWOFs and any other admission-based disposition that constitutes a “conviction” for federal immigration purposes under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(48)(A). An attorney who advises a non-citizen client that a CWOF is “not a conviction” and fails to advise of its immigration consequences has provided constitutionally deficient advice under Padilla.

Withdrawal of a Plea Under Massachusetts Rule 30(b)

Under Massachusetts Rule of Criminal Procedure 30(b), a defendant who entered a guilty plea or CWOF based on ineffective assistance of counsel, including the failure to advise of immigration consequences under Padilla, may move to withdraw the plea or admission. The motion must be filed in the court where the plea was entered and must show: (1) that counsel failed to provide accurate immigration advice or provided no advice at all; (2) that the defendant would not have entered the plea or admission had they received accurate advice; and (3) that there is a plausible defense to the underlying charge.

Massachusetts courts have granted Rule 30(b) motions in numerous cases involving non-citizen defendants who were not advised of immigration consequences before accepting a CWOF. Under Commonwealth v. Clarke (460 Mass. 30, 2011), the Massachusetts SJC’s application of Padilla, a defendant who shows that counsel provided constitutionally deficient immigration advice is entitled to withdraw the plea if they can demonstrate that the deficient advice affected the outcome. Attorney Serpa has successfully moved to withdraw pleas and CWOF admissions under Rule 30(b) in cases where prior counsel failed to advise non-citizen clients of immigration consequences.

Vacatur and Post-Conviction Relief

When a non-citizen’s prior conviction is rendering them deportable and the conviction was obtained in violation of Padilla, post-conviction relief, vacatur of the conviction, may be available through a Rule 30(b) motion or a motion for a new trial under Mass. R. Crim. P. 30(a). A vacated Massachusetts conviction eliminates the federal immigration consequence of that conviction. The vacatur must be on the merits: a vacatur for immigration purposes alone, without a legal basis in deficient counsel or constitutional error, may not eliminate the immigration consequence under current First Circuit precedent. The intersection of post-conviction relief and immigration law requires coordination between criminal defense counsel and immigration counsel.

The Supreme Judicial Court has since held in Commonwealth v. Chhieng that the immigration warning many District Court judges gave for years was defective because it warned only about convictions and omitted admissions to sufficient facts. A noncitizen who never received the full warning required by M.G.L. c. 278, § 29D can move to withdraw the plea or admission once the federal government moves toward removal, even many years later. Our full analysis is at the Chhieng decision and reopening old Massachusetts cases.

Defense Strategy for Non-Citizen Defendants

Step 1: The Clerk-Magistrate Hearing, The Only Outcome That Creates No Record

For most misdemeanor charges where police did not make a warrantless arrest at the scene, the clerk-magistrate hearing under M.G.L. c. 218, § 35A is the highest-priority intervention. A clerk-magistrate hearing denial creates no public court record, no arraignment, no CORI entry, and no official criminal charge that federal immigration authorities can act on. For F-1 students, the clerk-magistrate denial prevents any formal SEVIS notification. For all non-citizens, the denied complaint is the only outcome that does not count as an “arrest” or “charge” for immigration purposes. See: A Practitioner’s Guide to Massachusetts Clerk-Magistrate Hearings. Skipping that hearing gives the defense a motion to dismiss, though the dismissal is without prejudice under Cabrera v. Commonwealth (SJC 2025); see our page on how Massachusetts criminal cases get dismissed.

Step 2: Pretrial Probation, The Immigration-Neutral Post-Arraignment Resolution

When the case has reached arraignment and a favorable resolution short of trial is needed, pretrial probation under M.G.L. c. 276, § 87 is generally the safest post-arraignment outcome for non-citizens. Because pretrial probation involves no admission to sufficient facts, it does not satisfy the § 1101(a)(48)(A) federal conviction definition in most circumstances. The case is dismissed upon successful completion of conditions. Defense counsel must verify with immigration counsel whether the specific charge and jurisdiction creates any immigration risk even under a PTP disposition. Some charges trigger immigration consequences regardless of the outcome.

Step 3: Immigration-Neutral Plea Alternatives

When neither a clerk-magistrate denial nor pretrial probation is achievable and a case must resolve by plea, defense counsel works with the prosecution to identify immigration-neutral alternatives: amended charges that do not trigger immigration consequences under the categorical approach; dispositions that result in a sentence below the relevant thresholds (under one year for CIMT inadmissibility, for example); or charges that are not CIMTs, aggravated felonies, or covered offenses under the specific immigration ground at issue. Every proposed amended charge must be analyzed under the categorical approach before acceptance.

Step 4: Trial

When no favorable pre-trial resolution is available and the immigration consequences of a plea or CWOF would be severe, the case goes to trial. A not-guilty verdict eliminates all immigration consequences from the charge. Attorney Serpa has taken cases to trial for non-citizen defendants, including OUI cases where a CWOF would trigger DACA termination, domestic violence cases where a CWOF would render the defendant deportable, and drug cases where a CWOF on a distribution charge would constitute an aggravated felony. The immigration stakes raise the cost of any adverse outcome and require the most thorough preparation available. See: Representative Trial Results.

Courts Where Massachusetts Criminal Charges With Immigration Consequences Are Prosecuted

Massachusetts criminal charges that carry immigration consequences are prosecuted in the District Court or Boston Municipal Court with territorial jurisdiction over the location of the alleged offense. The court where the case is heard does not change the immigration analysis, but it does affect the pace of prosecution, the local DA’s policies, and the practical options for pre-trial resolution. Certain courts have higher concentrations of non-citizen defendants, including international students, H-1B visa holders, and F-1 students, and Serpa Law Office has thirty years of experience in each of them.

• Boston Municipal Court (BMC Central), Suffolk County DA. Logan Airport incidents. Financial District, Seaport, and downtown Boston cases. H-1B and L-1 visa holders employed in the city.
• Cambridge District Court, Middlesex County DA. Harvard, MIT, and Tufts international students. Kendall Square biotech and technology visa holders. The Cambridge court has a high proportion of non-citizen defendants and prosecutors who are experienced with the immigration dimensions of criminal cases.
• Brookline District Court, Norfolk County DA. BU, BC, and Northeastern international students. Longwood Medical Area visa holders.
• Somerville District Court, Middlesex County DA. Tufts international students. Non-citizen defendants from the Somerville and Medford communities.
• Woburn District Court, Middlesex County DA. Burlington and Woburn technology and biotech corridor H-1B holders.
• Waltham District Court, Middlesex County DA. Route 128 technology corridor. Brandeis University international students.
• Quincy District Court, Norfolk County DA. Quincy’s large non-citizen community, including residents from Brazil, China, Vietnam, and Korea. Serpa Law Office Quincy office is minutes from the courthouse.
• Dedham District Court, Norfolk County DA. Wellesley, Needham, and Westwood non-citizen residents.
• Newton District Court, Norfolk County DA. Non-citizen professionals and families in Newton.
• Framingham District Court, Middlesex County DA. Framingham’s large Brazilian immigrant community. MetroWest non-citizen residents.
• Malden District Court, Middlesex County DA. Non-citizen defendants from Malden, Medford, Everett, and surrounding communities.
• Hingham District Court, Plymouth County DA. South Shore non-citizen residents.

For further information see: CWOF, Pretrial Probation, and Diversion FAQs, Domestic Violence Defense for Licensed Professionals, Students, and Non-Citizens, College and University Student Criminal Defense, Criminal Defense for Licensed Professionals in Massachusetts, and Greater Boston & Massachusetts Criminal Case FAQs.

Contact Serpa Law Office at 617.936.0201 for a confidential consultation about the immigration consequences of a Massachusetts criminal charge. For complex immigration matters, Attorney Serpa coordinates with experienced immigration attorneys to ensure that the criminal defense strategy accounts for all immigration consequences at every stage of the case. Boston office: 20 Park Plaza #400A. Quincy office: 500 Victory Rd., Suite 400A. Available 24 hours a day.