This section has intentionally been left blank to allow for the inclusion of additional safe havens.  We welcome your suggestions, and will be happy to share them with others via future editions of this book and its monthly updates on http://www.CriminalAndImmigrationLaw.com.

SAFE HAVEN - BANK FRAUD - ARGUMENT IT IS NOT A CMT IF BASED ON MERELY "FALSE" STATEMENT OR "FALSE OR FRAUDULENT" STATEMENT
Counsel can argue that a federal conviction of bank fraud under 18 U.S.C. 1344(b) ("false or fraudulent" representations) might not be CMT under the reasoning of Hirsch v.INS, 308 F.2d 562 (9th Cir. 1962). There are circumstances in which one could obtain property under the control of the bank (e.g., from one's own safe deposit box), under false, but not fraudulent pretences, (e.g., saying I lost the key, where in fact, estranged wife had taken it to prevent sale of assets before court injunction could be obtained). In Matter of Espinosa 10 I. & N. Dec. 98 (BIA 1962), the Board seemed to endorse the Hirsh line of thinking. Thanks to Lisa Brodyaga.

Ninth Circuit

SAFE HAVEN " CRIME INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE " UNAUTHORIZED MANUFACTURE OR POSSESSION OF U.S. IDENTIFICATION CARD
United States v. Jackson, ___ F.3d ___, 2014 WL 2747193 (9th Cir. Jun. 18, 2014) (reversing federal misdemeanor conviction for unlawfully manufacturing a U.S. identification card, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 701, since no rational finder of fact could have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that an identification card the defendant was accused of unlawfully manufacturing or possessing was, as section 701 requires, "of the design prescribed by the head of any department or agency of the United States."). Note: This offense should not be considered a crime of moral turpitude, since it is purely regulatory offense. There is no evil intent in manufacturing a U.S. identity card. It is only the fact that the manufacture or possession is unauthorized that renders it illegal. This is not sufficient categorically to constitute a CMT.

AGGRAVATED FELONY " FRAUD " UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS DEVICE FRAUD REQUIRES PROOF DEVICES ARE USABLE
United States v. Onyesoh, 674 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. Apr. 4, 2012) (reversing federal conviction for access device fraud under 18 U.S.C. 1029, for lack of proof of essential element that unauthorized "access devices" were be usable; and government did not provide any evidence of usability of the expired credit card numbers).

SAFE HAVENS - FALSE INFORMATION -- HOAXES
United States v. Castagana, 604 F.3d 1160 (9th Cir. May 14, 2010) (defendant may be convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. 1038(a)(1), false information and hoaxes, without proof from the government that the defendant intended the recipients of the letters to believe they contained anthrax)

SAFE HAVEN - FRAUD - AGGRAVATED FELONY - CRIME OF MORAL TURPITUDE
United States v. Treadwell, 593 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (wire fraud convictions under 18 U.S.C. 1343 do not require an intent to cause pecuniary loss, but only intentional, permanent or temporary, deprivation to the victims of the opportunity to decide for themselves, on the basis of true and accurate information, whether or not to invest; one can intend to "deprive" a victim of property within the meaning of the statute without intending to cause pecuniary loss; one can intentionally "deprive" another of property while at the same time intending to restore it at a later date), citing United States v. Oren, 893 F.2d 1057, 1061 (9th Cir.1990) (fraud without intent to cause pecuniary loss); United States v. Benny, 786 F.2d 1410 (9th Cir.1986) (temporary deprivation).

SAFE HAVEN - FRAUD - AGGRAVATED FELONY - CRIME OF MORAL TURPITUDE
United States v. Treadwell, 593 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (wire fraud convictions under 18 U.S.C. 1343 do not require an intent to cause pecuniary loss, but only intentional, permanent or temporary, deprivation to the victims of the opportunity to decide for themselves, on the basis of true and accurate information, whether or not to invest; one can intend to "deprive" a victim of property within the meaning of the statute without intending to cause pecuniary loss; one can intentionally "deprive" another of property while at the same time intending to restore it at a later date), citing United States v. Oren, 893 F.2d 1057, 1061 (9th Cir.1990) (fraud without intent to cause pecuniary loss); United States v. Benny, 786 F.2d 1410 (9th Cir.1986) (temporary deprivation).

SAFE HAVEN - CRIME OF MORAL TURPITUDE
United States v. Youssef, 547 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. Nov. 5, 2008) (federal conviction for violation of 18 U.S.C. 1015(a), making a false statement in an immigration document, does not require the false statement to be material; even though prior conviction qualified for the petty offense exception to inadmissibility, and was therefore immaterial to admission, the noncitizen was required to disclose the fact of conviction).

Other

SAFE HAVENS " FEDERAL " DELIVERY OF FALSE WRITING AS TRUE
18 U.S.C. 1018 (Whoever, being a public officer or other person authorized by any law of the United States to make or give a certificate or other writing, knowingly makes and delivers as true such a certificate or writing, containing any statement which he knows to be false, in a case where the punishment thereof is not elsewhere expressly provided by law, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.). (June 25, 1948, c. 645, 62 Stat. 753; Sept. 13, 1994, Pub.L. 103-322, Title XXXIII, 330016(1)(G), 108 Stat. 2147.) 1994 Amendments. Pub.L. 103-322, 330016(1)(G), substituted under this title for not more than $500. Note: It is possible to deliver as true a writing known to contain a false statement without exhibiting moral turpitude. For example, assume a car was burglarized , and the thieves stole a daypack containing (1) a $200 camera, and (2) a half-used tube of toothpaste, and the victim made an insurance claim listing the camera, but not the toothpaste. This would be a violation of this this statute on the state level (knowingly making a false insurance claim) by underrepresenting the loss. Someone else might knowingly make an irrelevant false statement out of laziness (not wanting to take the effort to evaluate the toothpaste) or slight generosity (feeling collecting for the camera was enough). None of these instances would involve moral turpitude. By analogy to theft, there would be no intent to permanently deprive the owner, or by analogy to fraud, no intent to defraud anyone of anything of value. More research is needed to examine the elements to see if this kind of innocuous conduct fits within the plain language of this statute. Then it is necessary to examine reported decisions and other sources of information to determine whether someone was actually prosecuted for this offense based on non-moral turpitude conduct.

SAFE HAVENS " AGGRAVATED FELONIES " FRAUD OFFENSES " MORTGAGE FRAUD
12 U.S.C. 2607(b) and (d)(1) prohibit accepting an illegal fee or aiding and abetting such receipt. 12 U.S.C. 2607(b) and (d)(1) provide: (b) Splitting charges No person shall give and no person shall accept any portion, split, or percentage of any charge made or received for the rendering of a real estate settlement service in connection with a transaction involving a federally related mortgage loan other than for services actually performed. (d) Penalties for violations; joint and several liability; treble damages; actions for injunction by Bureau and Secretary and by State officials; costs and attorney fees; construction of State laws (1) Any person or persons who violate the provisions of this section shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both. Thanks to Scott A. Sugarman. Note: This misdemeanor is not a fraud offense, since there is no element of fraud or deceit. Therefore, it is not a fraud aggravated felony, even if the loss to the victim(s) is in excess of $10,000. This is not a theft offense, so it is not a theft aggravated felony, even if the sentence imposed is one year. This is not a crime of moral turpitude, since there is no mental element of sufficiently evil intent. Therefore, this offense does not trigger any crime-related ground of deportation or inadmissibility, or bar to immigration relief.

SAFE HAVEN " BANK FRAUD
False Bank Entries, 18 U.S.C. 1005 Statute is divisible and criminalizes false bank entries made with the "intent to injure or defraud." Immigration counsel might argue that guilty plea to an offense committed solely with "intent to injure" is not a crime involving moral turpitude: it cannot be fraud since "intent to injury" would then be redundant.