Uppal v. Holder, 576 F.3d 1014 (9th Cir. Aug. 11, 2009) (crimes requiring proof of only the general intent to commit an act may be considered crimes involving moral turpitude).



On this point, the court states:



Uppal nonetheless contends that since 268 only requires the intent to act, not the intent to harm, offenses under this section lack the necessary evil or malicious intent required of crimes of moral turpitude. Yet the BIA has recognized that aggravated assault may involve moral turpitude even in the absence of an "explicit element of evil intent." In re Lopez-Meza, 22 I. & N. Dec. 1188, 1193 (BIA 1999). We have also questioned the value of the oft-cited "evil intent" requirement:



If the crime is a serious one, the deliberate decision to commit it can certainly be regarded as the manifestation of an evil intent. Conversely, if the crime is trivial, even a deliberate intent to commit it will not demonstrate an intent so evil as to make the crime one of moral turpitude.



Galeana-Mendoza, 465 F.3d at 1061 (quoting Mei v. Ashcroft, 393 F.3d 737, 741 (7th Cir.2004)). Intentional conduct can be morally turpitudinous if accompanied by a "meaningful level of harm," regardless of whether the assault statute contains a general or a specific intent requirement. Solon, 24 I. & N. Dec. at 242. . . .



While some element of intent is a prerequisite to finding a crime involving moral turpitude, an intent to harm, per se, is not necessarily required. Solon, 24 I. & N. Dec. at 242. Section 268 requires an intent to take an action which, objectively viewed, would endanger another's life or result in serious bodily injury. The deliberate intent to take an action with such grave consequences "can certainly be regarded as the manifestation of an evil intent." Galeana-Mendoza, 465 F.3d at 1061. The fact that the statute does not require a subjective intent to harm does not preclude a 268 offense from qualifying as a categorical CIMT.



Id. at 1020-1021. This case seems to overrule, sub silentio, Matter of Mueller, (index decision from 2000). That case held that Penal Code 243(d) was not a CMT because "battery causing serious bodily injury" did not have any intent other than a simple battery (i.e., no intent to harm or cause serious bodily injury). See also Matter of Mueller, 11 I. & N. Dec. 268 (BIA 1965).