Rodriguez-Castro v. Gonzales, 427 F.3d 316 (5th Cir. Oct. 3, 2005) (attempted misd. child abandonment, with intent to go back to the child, under Tex. Pen. Code § 22.041(b) is not a crime of moral turpitude because the offense may be committed without the actor knowing s/he thereby places the child at risk, and only required negligence);

Knapik v. Ashcroft, 384 F.3d 84 (3d Cir. Sept. 17, 2004) (N.Y. conviction of reckless endangerment, under New York Penal Law § 120.25, providing that a “person is guilty of reckless endangerment in the first degree when, under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life, he recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another person,” constitutes a crime of moral turpitude for deportation purposes).

 

            See also § 9.94, infra.

BIA

CRIME OF MORAL TURPITUDE " RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT
Matter of Leal, 26 I. & N. Dec. 20 (BIA 2012) (Arizona conviction for violation of ARS 13-1201(a), recklessly endangering another person with a substantial risk of imminent death, is a CMT for immigration purposes, even though Arizonas definition of recklessness includes ignorance of risk resulting from voluntary intoxication).

Ninth Circuit

CRIMES OF MORAL TURPITUDE " RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT
Leal v. Holder, 771 F.3d 1140 (9th Cir. Nov. 6, 2014) (Arizona conviction of felony endangerment under Arizona Revised Statute 13"1201 [recklessly endangering another person with a substantial risk of imminent death or physical injury where reckless means consciously disregard a substantial and unjustifiable risk] constituted a crime of moral turpitude: We agree with the BIA's determination that the creation of a substantial, actual risk of imminent death is sufficiently reprehensible, or in terms of our case law base, vile, and depraved, to establish a CIMT, even though no actual harm need occur.).

CRIMES OF MORAL TURPITUDE " FALSE IMPRISONMENT
Saavedra-Figueroa v. Holder, 625 F.3d 621 (9th Cir. Nov. 5, 2010) (California misdemeanor conviction of false imprisonment, in violation of Penal Code 236, was not a categorical crime of moral turpitude, because crime did not require noncitizen to have the intent to harm necessary for the crime to be base, vile or depraved).

Eleventh Circuit

CRIMES OF MORAL TURPITUDE - ENDANGERMENT - RECKLESS CONDUCT
Keungne v. United States Atty Gen., 561 F.3d 128 (11th Cir. Mar. 11, 2009) (Georgia conviction for "reckless conduct," in violation of Ga. Code Ann. 16-5-60(b) ["endanger bodily safety of another by consciously disregarding a substantial and unjustifiable risk that his act or omission will cause harm"] is categorically a crime of moral turpitude), relying upon Knapik v. Ashcroft, 384 F.3d 84 (3d Cir. 2004).

Note: the court did not address the issue that the offense can be committed through an omission.