Sale of a Controlled Substance.

 

Matter of Y, 2 I. & N. Dec. 600 (BIA 1946) (Canadian conviction of violation of § 4(1)(f) of the Dominion Opium and Narcotic Drug Act for unlawful sale and possession of drugs was held a crime involving moral turpitude, since Canadian courts held that the statute violated was neither a licensing nor a revenue statute, but had been enacted to prevent the commission of a crime and to punish criminals).

 

Distribution of a controlled substance is a CMT where knowledge and intent are elements of the offense.

 

United States ex rel. Abbenante v. Butterfield, 112 F.Supp. 324 (D. Mich. 1953) (forging of narcotics prescriptions in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 494, which makes it a federal offense to forge, falsely make, or counterfeit “any bond, bid, proposal, contract, guaranty, security, official bond, public record, affidavit, or other writings for the purpose of defrauding the United States,” constituted a CMT);

Matter of Khourn, 21 I. & N. Dec. 1041 (BIA 1997) (distribution of cocaine, under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (1988), is a conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude, where knowledge or intent is an element of the offense), overruling Matter of Abreu-Semino, 12 I. & N. Dec. 775 (BIA 1968) (conviction for unlawful sale of LSD under 21 U.S.C. § 331(q)(2) was not crime involving moral turpitude because intent was nowhere mentioned in defining the prohibited acts).

 

Trafficking in narcotics is a CMT.

 

United States ex rel. Dentico v. Esperdy, 280 F.2d 71 (2d Cir. 1960);

DeLuca v. O’Rourke, 213 F.2d 759 (8th Cir. 1954) (while there may be technical, inadvertent, and insignificant violations of the laws relating to narcotics which do not involve moral turpitude, there can be nothing more depraved or morally indefensible than conscious participation in the illicit drug traffic, and dealing with narcotic drugs known to have been smuggled into the United States is certainly no less reprehensible and probably no less a fraud upon the revenues than the offenses involved in the Jordan case).

 

Transportation of a Controlled Substance.

 

Smalley v. Ashcroft, 354 F.3d 332 (5th Cir. Dec. 15, 2003) (travel in interstate commerce with intent to conceal or disguise nature, location, source, ownership, or control of property believed to be the proceeds of unlawful drug activity is CMT as per se morally reprehensible and contrary to accepted rules of morality);

Nunez-Payan v. INS, 811 F.2d 264 (5th Cir. 1987) (noncitizen was statutorily precluded from proving Good Moral Character as basis for suspension of deportation by previous Texas conviction for transporting one pound of marijuana).

 

Facilitation of Sale.

 

            In the related area of the controlled substance ground of deportation, the BIA has held that “facilitation” of sale constitutes a deportable conviction of violating a law relating to a controlled substance.[33]  On the other hand, the CMT ground of inadmissibility specifically states that “attempt” and “conviction” are included, but does not mention “facilitation.”  This gives rise to the argument that “facilitation” is not included.[34]  See § 9.7, supra.

[33] Matter of Del Risco, 20 I. & N. Dec. 109 (BIA 1989) (conviction of facilitation of the unlawful sale of cocaine renders a noncitizen deportable on account of a conviction of violating a law relating to a controlled substance).

[34] United States v. Rivera-Sanchez, 247 F.3d 905, 908 (9th Cir. 2001)(citing Leyva-Licea v. INS, 187 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir. 1999); Coronado-Durazo v. INS, 123 F.3d 1322 (9th Cir. 1997) (Arizona conviction for solicitation to commit a drug offense did not constitute a drug-related conviction)).

Other

CRIMES OF MORAL TURPITUDE"CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES"CULTIVATION OF MARIJUANA
People v. Gabriel, 203 Cal.App.4th 199, 137 Cal.Rptr.3d 382 (2d Dist. Feb. 3, 2012) (California conviction of cultivation of marijuana, in violation of Health and Safety Code 11358, constituted a crime of moral turpitude, for purposes of impeachment of a witness with that conviction; rejecting argument that the offense is not a CMT because, at its minimum, includes cultivation for personal use, and so it not necessarily related to drug trafficking).