Uniform Standard Set to Determine When a Conviction Involves Moral Turpitude
On October 12, 2016, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) released a decision regarding the methodology for determining when a conviction is for a crime involving moral turpitude.
The decision was rendered based on the Matter of Cristoval SILVA-TREVINO, Respondent.
The case revolves around a Mexican citizen who came to the U.S. as a lawful permanent resident in 1962. In 2004, he was convicted of sexual misconduct with a minor. The Department of Homeland Security decided that this conviction was grounds for removability. The respondent applied for adjustment of status but the presiding immigration judge found that he was ineligible because he had been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude, rendering him inadmissible according to the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
The respondent appealed the decision and the BIA ruled that he was not inadmissible because the Texas Penal Code criminalized some conduct that did not involve moral turpitude and the record of conviction did not contain any information about the precise conduct that the respondent was guilty of.
In 2007, the Attorney General vacated the BIA’s decision and set forth a framework for determining when a conviction is for a crime involving moral turpitude with regard to this specific case. Based on this framework, the presiding immigration judge concluded that the respondent had indeed been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude and was ineligible for adjustment of status. But when the respondent filed a petition for review with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the court vacated the decision because it had been made based on evidence outside the record of conviction and specific phrasing suggested that this was prohibited. The case was remanded for further proceedings.
Finally, in 2015, the Attorney General decided that in light of the disagreement amongst the courts it was necessary to develop a new framework for determining when a crime involves moral turpitude. This new framework would be a nationally uniform standard. He vacated the results of the case before this point and remanded the record for the BIA to develop the new framework.
The BIA concluded that the categorical and modified categorical approaches provide the appropriate framework for evaluating whether a conviction is one that involves moral turpitude. Because in this particular case the respondent was not convicted of a crime that categorically involved moral turpitude, and there was no basis to apply the modified categorical approach, the BIA ruled that he was not inadmissible under the INA clause of a crime involving moral turpitude, and is therefore eligible for adjustment of status.
To view the case in full, please click here.
Disclaimer: This newsletter is provided as a public service and not intended to establish an attorney client relationship. Any reliance on information contained herein is taken at your own risk.