BIA Rules Shoplifting to be a Categorical Crime Involving Moral Turpitude
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) was asked to review a case of shoplifting and determine if the respondent was removable on the grounds of having committed a crime involving moral turpitude.
The respondent in this case is a Mexican citizen and lawful permanent resident of the U.S. In July 2015, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) charged him with removability on the grounds that he was an immigrant charged with two or more crimes involving moral turpitude. Specifically, the respondent was convicted in the state of Arizona for shoplifting property in 2010, 2012, and 2013.
According to the BIA, there is no question that the respondent sustained his convictions under Arizona law. However, in the initial case, the immigration judge dismissed the charge of removability and terminated the proceedings on the grounds that these were not crimes involving moral turpitude. In the appeal, DHS argued that shoplifting is a categorical crime involving moral turpitude.
The BIA has long held that in the case of theft, it is only a crime involving moral turpitude if it is committed with the intent to permanently deprive an owner of property. However, most states have updated their laws such that the intent to permanently deprive does not have to be literal. It could mean an intent to deprive where the owner’s property rights are substantially eroded. Arizona state law takes this view.
The BIA has decided that this view makes more sense in contemporary times. Therefore, it determined that shoplifting is categorically a crime involving moral turpitude. It reinstated removal proceedings for the respondent and ruled the any prior decisions it made based upon the requirement of a literal intent to permanently deprive in order for a theft offense to be considered a crime involving moral turpitude, are now overruled.
To view the full case, please click here.
BIA Rules Petit Larceny is a Crime that Categorically Involves Moral Turpitude
On August 12, 2004, a man from Nigeria was admitted to the U.S. as a lawful permanent resident. In 2008 he was convicted of petit larceny and sentenced to three years of probation. He violated his probation in 2011 and was sentenced to prison for ten months.
In November 2008, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) charged the respondent with removability because he was an immigrant who had been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude. An immigration judge determined that the respondent was removable and ordered him deported to Nigeria. The respondent appealed the case and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) was left to determine whether or not petit larceny is in fact a crime involving moral turpitude.
The BIA determined that a crime involving moral turpitude refers generally to “conduct that is inherently base, vile, or depraved, and contrary to the accepted rules of morality and the duties owed between persons or to society in general.” Moreover, a crime involving moral turpitude must have been committed with some form of knowledge of wrongdoing. Lastly, the BIA held that theft is only considered a crime involving moral turpitude if it is committed with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of property or substantially erode the owner’s property rights.
In the state of New York, where the respondent committed the offense, a conviction of petit larceny requires proof of intent to permanently deprive the owner of property. Therefore, the BIA ruled that the respondent’s offense was categorically a crime involving moral turpitude.
To view the full case, 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.