Robbery.  Robbery clearly constitutes a crime involving moral turpitude, since both the force or threat of force against the person of the victim and the intent permanently to deprive him or her of property qualify as “evil intent.”[64] 

 

Brett v. INS, 386 F.2d 439 (2d Cir. 1967) (robbery constitutes crime of moral turpitude);

Dentico v. Esperdy, 280 F.2d 71 (2d Cir. 1960) (attempted third-degree robbery);

United States v. Shaughnessy, 219 F.2d 249 (2d Cir. 1955);

Cerami v. Uhl, 78 F.2d 698 (2d Cir. 1935);

United States v. Day, 54 F.2d 336 (2d Cir. 1931);

United States ex rel. Meyer v. Day, 54 F.2d 336 (2d Cir. 1931);

United States ex rel. Paladino v. Comm’r of Immig., 43 F.2d 821 (2d Cir. 1930);

Gubbels v. Del Guercio, 152 F.Supp. 277 (S.D.Cal. 1957), rev’d on other grounds, Gubbels v. Hoy, 261 F.2d 952 (9th Cir. 1958) (conviction of auto theft by force and violence involved moral turpitude);

United States v. Brown, 127 F.Supp.2d 392, 408-409 (W.D.N.Y. 2001) (Virginia conviction of robbery, under Virginia Code § 18.2-58 (Michie 2000), was crime involving moral turpitude) (dictum);

Matter of Martin, 18 I. & N. Dec. 226 (BIA 1982);

Matter of Rodriguez-Palma, 17 I. & N. Dec. 465 (BIA 1980), holding modified by Matter of Gonzalez, 19 I. & N. Dec. 682 (BIA 1988);

Matter of Romandia-Herreros, 11 I. & N. Dec. 772 (BIA 1966) (Mexico); 

Matter of Quadra, 11 I. & N. Dec. 457 (BIA 1966);

Matter of Z, 5 I. & N. Dec. 383 (BIA 1953);

Matter of J, 4 I. & N. Dec. 512 (BIA 1951) (conviction of armed robbery in violation of Chapter 277, § 37 of the Annotated Laws of Massachusetts involves moral turpitude);

Matter of GR, 2 I. & N. Dec. 733 (BIA 1946) (conviction of robbery, second degree, in violation of California Penal Code § 213 is a crime involving moral turpitude), citing United States ex rel. Cerami v. Uhl, 78 F.2d 698 (2d Cir. 1935);

Matter of F, 2 I. & N. Dec. 517 (BIA 1946) (conviction of theft from the person in violation of Canada Criminal Code § 379 involves moral turpitude where the evidence shows a “permanent taking” was intended).

 

But see U.S. ex rel. Fontan v. Uhl, 16 F.Supp. 428 (S.D.N.Y. 1936) (holding that the offense, under French law, of not having paid one’s ship passage does not constitute a crime involving moral turpitude, even though designated or labeled as a “robbery”).

 

In Matter of Romandia-Herreros,[65] a Mexican conviction of the crime of “robo,” mistranslated in the record of conviction as “robbery,” was held to be a crime involving moral turpitude.  The record of conviction established that spare vehicle parts had been stolen from a business establishment, that the noncitizen had entered the business, that the missing parts were found in the back of a restaurant he operated, and that he had been offering them for sale.  (The facts described in the record constitute theft, rather than robbery.)

 

Aiding a robbery.

 

Xiong v. INS, 97 F.3d 1457 (8th Cir. 1996) (Table) (aiding and abetting robbery held a crime of moral turpitude).

 

Robbery with violence.

 

Matter of C, 2 I. & N. Dec. 716 (BIA 1946) (conviction of robbery with violence on the person in violation of Canada Criminal Code § 446 does involve moral turpitude).

[64] 9 U.S. Dep’t of State, Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) § 40.21(a) N.2.3-1(b)(1).

[65] Matter of Romandia-Herreros, 11 I. & N. Dec. 772 (BIA 1966).

Ninth Circuit

CRIMES OF MORAL TURPITUDE " ROBBERY
Mendoza v. Holder, 623 F.3d 1299 (9th Cir., Oct. 27, 2010) (California conviction of robbery, in violation of Penal Code 211, was a crime involving moral turpitude), deferring to Matter of G-R-, 2 I. & N. Dec. 733, 734 (BIA 1946); Matter of Kim, 17 I. & N. Dec. 144, 145 (BIA 1979)).