31 May May Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude cause removal of aliens?
By Atty. Crispin C. Lozano
When a person applies for an immigrant or non-immigrant visa, for adjustment of status to become a permanent resident of the United States, or for citizenship or naturalization, a lack of good moral character, a finding of moral turpitude, and certain criminal offenses can result in a finding of inadmissibility, denial of visa, or denial of naturalization, and removal of aliens.
There are permanent and conditional bars to the determination of good moral character.
We will discuss the conditional bars to naturalization in this article.
Q: What do conditional bars to good moral character mean?
A: Conditional bars are not permanent in nature and are triggered by specific acts, offenses, activities, circumstances, or convictions within the statutory period for naturalization, including the period prior to filing and up to the time of the Oath of Allegiance. Some crimes bar you from naturalizing for only the five or three years prior to your applying for naturalization. That’s because the law requires a naturalization applicant to prove five years of good moral character as a condition for naturalizing, three years if you qualify under the special rules that apply to certain spouses of US citizens.
Q: What crimes are considered conditional bars to good moral character?
A: Crimes in this conditional bar category include any crime involving moral turpitude, two or more gambling offenses, a drug offense, two or more nonpolitical offenses for which a judge sentenced you to five years’ imprisonment or more, and any crime for which you were confined to prison for more than 180 days. So, if the crime is in this group, but is not an aggravated felony, you can naturalize five (or three) years after having committed the crime.
Q: How can it be determined that an act is a crime involving moral turpitude?
A: Whether an offense is a CIMT is largely based on whether the offense involves willful conduct that is morally reprehensible and intrinsically wrong, the essence of which is a reckless, evil or malicious intent. The Attorney General has decreed that a finding of “moral turpitude” requires that the perpetrator committed a reprehensible act with some form of guilty knowledge.
Q: What crimes can be considered crimes involving moral turpitude?
A: A crime involving fraud or dishonesty is usually considered to involve moral turpitude.
Other crimes the law considers to involve moral turpitude are: arson; assault with intent to kill or inflict serious bodily harm; bigamy; blackmail; bribery; bad check convictions; burglary; counterfeiting; larceny; perjury; prostitution; rape; drug crimes; receiving stolen goods; robbery; and sexual offenses. These crimes may be divided into crimes against a person, crimes against property, sexual and family crimes, and crimes against the authority of the government,
Q: When are crimes against a person considered a CIMT?
A: Crimes against a person involve moral turpitude when the offense contains criminal intent or recklessness or when the crime is defined as morally reprehensible by state statute. Criminal intent or recklessness may be inferred from the presence of unjustified violence or the use of a dangerous weapon. For example, aggravated battery is usually, if not always, a CIMT. Simple assault and battery is not usually considered a CIMT.
Q: When are crimes against property considered a CIMT?
A: Moral turpitude attaches to any crime against property that involves fraud, whether it entails fraud against the government or against an individual. Certain crimes against property may require guilty knowledge or intent to permanently take property. Petty theft, grand theft, forgery, and robbery are CIMTs in some states.
Q: When are sexual and family crimes considered CIMTs?
A: It is difficult to discern a distinguishing set of principles that the courts apply to determine whether a particular offense involving sexual and family crimes is a CIMT. In some cases, the presence or absence of violence seems to be an important factor. The presence or absence of criminal intent may also be a determining factor. The CIMT determination depends upon state statutes and the controlling case law and must be considered on a case-by-case basis. Offenses such as spousal or child abuse may rise to the level of a CIMT, while an offense involving a domestic simple assault generally does not. An offense relating to indecent exposure or abandonment of a minor child may or may not rise to the level of a CIMT. In general, if the person knew or should have known that the victim was a minor, any intentional sexual contact with a child involves moral turpitude.
Q: When are crimes against the authority of the government considered crimes involving moral turpitude?
A: The presence of fraud primarily determines the presence of moral turpitude in crimes against the authority of the government.
Note: This is not a legal advice.
1. On December 18, 2015, we received an approval of petition for adoption that was previously denied because client did the petition by themselves.
2. On December 11, 2015, we received an approval of DACA for a client who was in removal proceedings.
3. On December 4, 2015, we received an approval of adjustment of status for a client who has three different names.
4. On November 20, 2015, we received an approval of adjustment of status for a client who was suspected of marriage by convenience.
5. On November 4, 2015, we received an approval of immigrant visa at the U.S. Consulate for the daughter of a client who was approved under VAWA.
6. On November 3, 2015, we received an approval of immigrant visa at the U.S. Consulate in Manila for a client who entered the U.S. as a seaman.
7. On October 29, 2015, we received an approval of I-751 from the Immigration Court for a client who married a U.S. citizen but the I-751 was previously denied by USCIS.
8. On October 27, 2015, we received an approval of adjustment of status for same sex marriage spouse beneficiary.
9. On October 9, 2015, we received an approval of a waiver in Immigration Court for a client who entered as single but actually married.
10. On September 30, 2015, we received an approval from U.S. Consulate of an immigrant visa for a seaman based on approved I-601A waiver.
11. On August 27, 2015, we received an approval of naturalization for the recipient of waiver of misrepresentation we litigated in the Immigration Court.
12. On August 19, 2015, we received an approval of Immigrant Visa from the U.S Embassy for a crewman who has approved I-601A waiver.
13. On August 11, 2015, we received an approval of Stay of Removal from the DHS for parents of DACA recipients.
14. On August 3, 2015, we received an approval of I-751 for an alien in removal proceedings.
15. We have more success stories at our website at www.crispinlozanolaw.com