(B)  Crimes of Moral Turpitude.[202]

 

Whether other driving offenses involve moral turpitude depends upon the elements of the offense.  Joyriding, for example, is not held to be a crime involving moral turpitude, when no intent to deprive the owner permanently of the property was required as an essential element of the offense.

 

Board of Immigration Appeals:

 

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 C, 2 I. & N. Dec. 716 (BIA 1946) (conviction of reckless driving does not involve moral turpitude) (dictum).

 

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).

 

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).

 

First Circuit:

 

Montero-Ubri v. INS, 229 F.3d 319 (1st Cir. 2000) (Massachusetts offense of possession of a false driver’s license, in violation of Mass.Gen.Laws, c. 90 § 24B, does not constitute a crime involving moral turpitude).

[202] See N. Tooby, J. Rollin & J. Foster, Crimes of Moral Turpitude § 9.88 (2005).

AGGRAVATED FELONY - CRIME OF VIOLENCE - AUTO THEFT
Nguyen v. Holder, 571 F.3d 524 (6th Cir. Jul. 2, 2009) (California conviction of auto theft, in violation of what is now codified at Penal Code 487(d)(i) (any person who (1) takes possession; (2) of an automobile; (3) owned or possessed by another; (4) by means of trespass and (5) with intent to permanently deprive the owner of such property; and (6) carries the automobile away), does not constitute a "crime of violence" under 18 U.S.C. 16(b), and is therefore not an aggravated felony under INA 101(a)(43)(F), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(F), for purposes of rendering the defendant deportable, because the theft offense does not by its nature, involve a "substantial risk" that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense).

Ninth Circuit

CRIMES OF MORAL TURPITUDE " HIT AND RUN
Conejo Bravo v. Sessions, 875 F.3d 890 (9th Cir. Nov.17, 2017) (California conviction of hit and run, under Vehicle Code 20001(a), is under a divisible statute; the record established that noncitizen failed to render aid, which is a crime of moral turpitude); see Garcia-Maldonado v. Gonzales, 491 F.3d 284, 290 (5th Cir. 2007) (holding that Texas hit and run law qualifies as a CIMT, as "the failure to stop and render aid after being involved in an automobile accident is the type of base behavior that reflects moral turpitude").

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 - 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).