T The application of specific minimum criminal penalties for immigration offenses should be enforced consistently as a manifestation of legal certainty; however, in judicial practice, there are still rulings that impose sentences below the minimum thresholds established by law, such as judgment no. 483/pid.sus/2020/pn btm. the main issue of this study is how the burden of proof in immigration criminal cases, as demonstrated in judgment no. 483/pid.sus/2020/pn btm involving defendant azman bin usman muharam, was met in accordance with applicable laws and regulations, and how the judge’s considerations and ruling align with the principle of legal certainty. the research method employed is a normative approach with a descriptive nature. the results of this study indicate that the evidence presented in judgment no. 483/pid.sus/2020/pn btm has satisfied the provisions of article 183 and article 184(1) of the criminal procedure code, thereby establishing that the elements of the crime of human smuggling, as stipulated in article 120(1) of law no. 6 of 2011 on immigration, were proven legally and convincingly based on at least two valid pieces of evidence and the judge’s conviction. the judge’s reasoning in imposing a sentence below the specific minimum does not reflect the principle of legal certainty because it is not accompanied by an adequate legal basis for deviating from the minimum penalty provision in article 120(1) of law no. 6 of 2011 on immigration, thereby potentially creating uncertainty in the application of the law.