(B)  Crimes of Moral Turpitude.[164]

 

Theft has traditionally been found to involve moral turpitude.[165]  This includes theft by deception or false pretenses.

(1)  Minor Offenses.

It has sometimes been suggested that an extremely minor theft, or a theft committed under extenuating circumstances might not involve moral turpitude.[166]  As a general matter, however, petty theft has been found to be CMT, irrespective of the lack of gravity of the offense.[167]

 

District Courts:

 

Diaz v. Haig, 594 F.Supp. 1 (D.Wyo. 1981) (theft of food by hungry child or theft of garments by ill-clothed child does not constitute crime of “moral turpitude”).

 

Quilodran-Brau v. Holland, 232 F.2d 183 (3d Cir. 1956) (court expressly did not decide whether there might be exception in extreme case).

 

(1)     (2) Temporary Taking.

 

Offenses that do not require, as an essential element, an intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property are not classified as theft crimes involving moral turpitude.[168]  Where a theft statute prohibits both temporary and permanent taking, the statute is considered divisible, allowing the conviction record to be examined in order to determine whether the conviction was under the portion of the statute relating to permanent taking, and therefore involved moral turpitude, or under the portion of the statute prohibiting temporary taking, in which case it did not.[169]

 

Board of Immigration Appeals:

 

Matter of N, 3 I. & N. Dec. 723 (BIA 1949) (court examined record of conviction for Canadian conviction where intent to deprive the owner permanently of the property was not clear).

 

Matter of P, 2 I. & N. Dec. 887 (BIA 1947) (conviction of “joy-riding” in violation of Canada Criminal Code § 285(3) does not involve moral turpitude).

Matter of H, 2 I. & N. Dec. 864 (BIA 1947) (joyriding not a CMT).

 

Matter of M, 2 I. & N. Dec. 686 (BIA 1946) (conviction of  “joy-riding” in violation of Canada Criminal Code § 285(3) does not involve moral turpitude because defendant did not intend to effect a permanent taking).

 

Matter of T, 2 I. & N. Dec. 22 (BIA, AG 1944) (court examined record of conviction for Canadian conviction where intent to deprive the owner permanently of the property was not clear).

 

Matter of D, 1 I. & N. Dec. 143 (BIA 1941) (driving an automobile without the consent of the owner in violation of former California Vehicle Code § 503 is not a crime involving moral turpitude).

 

(3) Other theft offenses

 

Board of Immigration Appeals:

 

Matter of Kinney, 10 I. & N. Dec. 548 (BIA 1964) (conviction of obtaining goods under false pretenses in violation of § 8698, General Statutes of Connecticut, 1949 Revision (C.G.S.A. § 53-362), is not a conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, because intent to defraud was not an element).

 

Matter of MB, 3 I. & N. Dec. 66 (BIA 1947) (where a conviction for taking mail from an authorized depository for mail matter, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 317, is predicated upon an information which does not shed any light on the circumstances under or the purpose for which the mail was taken, it cannot be found that the crime is one which necessarily involves moral turpitude).

[164] See N. Tooby, J. Rollin & J. Foster, Crimes of Moral Turpitude § 9.62 (2005).

[165] 9 U.S. Dep’t of State, Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) § 40.21(a) N.2.3-1(b)(9) (“Larceny (grand or petty)”).

[166] But see, e.g., Matter of Garcia, 11 I. & N. Dec. 521 (BIA 1966) (BIA precluded from going beyond record of conviction to consider mitigating circumstances). 

[167] See, e.g. Pino v. Landon, 349 U.S. 901 (1955) (petty theft of a dozen golf balls held CMT on principle).

[168] 9 U.S. Dep’t of State, Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) § 40.21(a) N.2.3-1(b)(13) (theft is a CMT only “when it involves the intention of permanent taking”).

[169] Matter of Grazley, 14 I. & N. Dec. 330 (BIA 1973).

First Circuit

CRIMES OF MORAL TURPITUDE " LARCENY
Patel v. Holder, 707 F.3d 77 (1st Cir. Feb. 1, 2013) (Connecticut conviction of fourth degree larceny under Conn. Gen.Stat. 53a"125, is not categorically a crime of moral turpitude because the offense may be committed without intent to permanently deprive).

CRIMES OF MORAL TURPITUDE " LARCENY
Patel v. Holder, 707 F.3d 77 (1st Cir. Feb. 1, 2013) (Connecticut conviction of fourth degree larceny under Conn. Gen.Stat. 53a"125, is not categorically a crime of moral turpitude because the offense may be committed without intent to permanently deprive).

Fourth Circuit

AGGRAVATED FELONY " THEFT OFFENSE " RECEIVING STOLEN OR EMBEZZLED PROPERTY
This file summarizes developments occurring from Apr. 1-30, 2016. Mena v. Lynch, ___ F.3d ___, 2016 WL 1660166 (4th Cir. Apr. 27, 2016) (federal conviction of violating 18 U.S.C. 659, second paragraph (purchase, receipt, or possession of property that has moved in interstate or foreign commerce knowing the same to have been embezzled or stolen), was not categorically an aggravated felony theft offense, under INA 101(a)(43)(G), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(G), for immigration purposes, because the crime of embezzlement necessarily involves a taking of property with the owner's consent, and a taking of property without consent is an essential element of aggravated felony theft); see Soliman v. Gonzales, 419 F.3d 276, 282 (4th Cir. 2005) ([w]hen a theft offense has occurred, property has been obtained from its owner without consent; but in a fraud scheme, the owner has voluntarily surrendered his property, because of an intentional perversion of truth, or otherwise act [ed] upon a false representation to his injury. . . . [The] key and controlling distinction between these two crimes is ... the consent element"theft occurs without consent, while fraud occurs with consent that has been unlawfully obtained.); accord, Omargharib v. Holder, 775 F.3d 192, 196 (4th Cir. 2014).

AGGRAVATED FELONY " THEFT OFFENSES " UNAUTHORIZED USE OF A MOTOR VEHICLE " DEFINITION OF THEFT
Castillo v. Holder, ___ F.3d ___, ___, 2015 WL 161952 (4th Cir. Jan. 14, 2015) (Virginia conviction of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, in violation of Virginia Code 18.2"102 [take, drive or use any ... vehicle ... not his own, without the consent of the owner [ ] and in the absence of the owner, and with intent temporarily to deprive the owner [ ] of his possession [ ], without intent to steal the same, shall be guilty], did not categorically qualify as an aggravated felony theft offense, under INA 101(a)(43)(G), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(G), because the full range of conduct covered by the Virginia crime of unauthorized use can and do arise based on circumstances in which the defendant's use of property deviates only slightly from the specific scope of consensual use, resulting in an insignificant effect on ownership interests. [Footnote omitted] These circumstances stand in stark contrast to crimes involving the intentional, nonconsensual takings that typically involve significant impairment of ownership rights and damage to the property as described by the BIA in its elaboration of the term theft offense. See VZS, 22 I. & N. Dec. at 1349.); quoting Overstreet v. Commonwealth, 17 Va.App. 234, 435 S.E.2d 906, 908 (Va.Ct.App.1993).

Ninth Circuit

AGGRAVATED FELONY " THEFT OFFENSE
Lopez-Valencia v. Lynch, ___ F.3d ___ (9th Cir. Aug. 17, 2015) (California theft conviction, including any offense for which the underlying substantive offense charged was a violation of Penal Code 484, is not aggravated felony theft, since because the California definition of theft includes theft of labor, false credit reporting, and theft by false pretenses, which do not fall within the definition of aggravated felony theft).

AGGRAVATED FELONY " THEFT OFFENSE " THEFT
Garcia v. Lynch, ___ F.3d ___, ___, 2015 WL 2385402 (9th Cir. May 20, 2015) (California conviction of theft, under Penal Code 487(a), is not categorically a theft aggravated felony because the California offense includes theft of labor, and because the California statute may be violated even if the victim consented to transfer his property by false pretenses), citing Carrillo"Jaime v. Holder, 572 F.3d 747, 751"53 (9th Cir. 2009).

CRIMES OF MORAL TURPITUDE " UNAUTHORIZED DRIVING A VEHICLE
Almanza-Arenas v. Holder, ___ F.3d ___ (9th Cir. Nov. 10, 2014) (California conviction of violating Vehicle Code 10851(a), a statute that criminalizes both conduct that would constitute a crime of moral turpitude " taking a vehicle with intent permanently to deprive the owner, and conduct that does not amount to a crime of moral turpitude " taking with intent temporarily to deprive the owner " was not categorically a crime of moral turpitude and does not render respondent ineligible for non-LPR cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b) in the context of removal proceedings for inadmissibility); see Castillo-Cruz v. Holder, 581 F.3d 1154, 1159 (9th Cir. 2009) (a theft offense is not categorically a crime of moral turpitude if the statute of conviction is broad enough to criminalize a taking with intent to deprive the owner of his property only temporarily.).

Carrillo-Jaime v. Holder, 572 F.3d 747 (9th Cir. Jul. 15, 2009) (California conviction of owning and operating a chop shop, in violation of Vehicle Code 10801 ("premises where any person has been engaged in altering, destroying, disassembling, dismantling, reassembling, or storing any motor vehicle or motor vehicle part known to be illegally obtained by theft, fraud, or conspiracy to defraud"), did not constitute a theft aggravated felony within the meaning of INA 101(a)(43)(G), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(G), under the categorical approach, since the offense permits exercising control over property obtained by fraud, which is necessarily committed with the consent of the owner, and the conviction therefore does not require that the exercise of control over the property be "without consent" as required by the generic definition of theft aggravated felony).

AGGRAVATED FELONY - THEFT - JOYRIDING
Penuliar v. Ashcroft, 528 F.3d 603 (9th Cir. Jun. 10, 2008) (California conviction for violation of California Vehicle Code 10851, unlawful driving of a motor vehicle, is not categorically an aggravated felony "theft" offense for immigration purposes, since that statutes includes accessories after the fact), following United States v. Vidal, 504 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2007)

AGGRAVATED FELONY - THEFT OFFENSE - IDENTITY THEFT
Mandujano-Real v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 585 (9th Cir. May 22, 2008) (Oregon conviction of identity theft, under Oregon Revised Statute 165.800, did not categorically qualify as an aggravated felony theft offense, under INA 101(a)(43)(G), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(G), for purposes of removal, because use of a false identity does not deprive anyone of "ownership" and the statute punishes use of another persons identity even if that the use was with consent).

AGGRAVATED FELONY - THEFT OFFENSE - UNAUTHORIZED DRIVING
United States v. Vidal, 504 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. Oct. 10, 2007) (9-6 en banc) (California conviction for unlawful driving or taking of vehicle, under Penal Code 10851(a), did not categorically qualify as an aggravated felony theft offense under INA 101(a)(43)(G), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(G) for purposes of enhancement of illegal reentry sentence, since the offense includes accessory after the fact, which is not listed in INA 101(a)(43)(U), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(G) as an aggravated felony inchoate offense).

Eleventh Circuit

AGGRAVATED FELONY " THEFT " SHOPLIFTING
Ramos v. U.S. Attorney General, 709 F.3d 1066 (11th Cir. Feb. 19, 2013) (Georgia conviction of shoplifting, in violation of Georgia Code 16"8"14(a)(1) [theft has two alternative intent elements: the intent of appropriating merchandise to his own use without paying for the same or to deprive the owner of possession thereof or of the value thereof, in whole or in part ...], is not categorically an aggravated felony theft offense, for purposes of deportability, because it can be committed with mere intent to appropriate, which falls outside the generic definition of aggravated felony theft); following Jaggernauth v. U.S. Attorney General, 432 F.3d 1346 (11th Cir. 2005) (a theft statute that included two disjunctive intent requirements"an intent to deprive and an intent to appropriate"was divisible and did not categorically constitute an aggravated felony theft offense).

AGGRAVATED FELONY " THEFT " SHOPLIFTING
Ramos v. U.S. Attorney General, ___ F.3d ___, 2013 WL 599552 (11th Cir. Feb. 19, 2013) (Georgia conviction of shoplifting, in violation of Georgia Code 16"8"14(a)(1) [theft has two alternative intent elements: the intent of appropriating merchandise to his own use without paying for the same or to deprive the owner of possession thereof or of the value thereof, in whole or in part ...], is not categorically an aggravated felony theft offense, for purposes of deportability, because it can be committed with mere intent to appropriate, which falls outside the generic definition of aggravated felony theft); following Jaggernauth v. U.S. Attorney General, 432 F.3d 1346 (11th Cir. 2005) (a theft statute that included two disjunctive intent requirements"an intent to deprive and an intent to appropriate"was divisible and did not categorically constitute an aggravated felony theft offense).

Other

SAFE HAVENS " CRIMES OF MORAL TURPITUDE " THEFT
People v. Casas, 184 Cal.App.4th 1242 (May 25, 2010) (conviction of defendant for embezzlement is affirmed as, even if the defendant had intended to eventually return both the trade-in vehicle and the $400 down payment, his appropriation of both, for his own personal use, was significant in duration and incompatible with the owner's enjoyment or use of the property).