In a consistent line of precedent decisions the BIA has held that in order for a theft conviction to constitute a crime of moral turpitude and a theft offense, it must involve the intent to permanently deprive a person of his or her property.  Matter of Grazley, 14 I. & N. Dec. 330, 333 (BIA 1973); see Matter of N, 7 I. & N. Dec. 356 (BIA 1956)("Moral turpitude exists where there is a taking with intent to permanently deprive the owner of property."); Matter of T, 3 I. & N. Dec. 641 (BIA 1949). In Matter of Grazley, the respondent was convicted under the Canadian theft statute, which required the intent to deprive the owner, either temporarily or absolutely.  Matter of Grazley, supra, at 332.   Theft universally requires a permanent intent to deprive the owner of the benefit or use of the good. Theft is defined in Blacks Law Dictionary as "any of the following acts done with the intent to deprive the owner permanently of the possession, use or benefit of his property". Blacks Law Dictionary 1477 (6th Edition, 1990). The BIA has also held that only offenses involving taking of goods with the permanent intent to deprive constitute crimes of moral turpitude. Matter of Grazely,14 I. & N. Dec. 330, 333 (BIA 1973). In Matter of VZ, Int. Dec. 3434 (BIA Aug. 1, 2000), the BIA found that a conviction for auto theft constitutes an aggravated felony "theft offense" even where the defendant did not intend to permanently steal the vehicle. In that case, the respondent was convicted of multiple offenses with sentences of incarceration amounting to more than five years, making him ineligible for withholding of removal or any other relief. This aggravated felony question is different and distinct from the question whether a conviction constitutes a crime of moral turpitude.