BIA

CRIME OF MORAL TURPITUDE - BURGLARY - OCCUPIED DWELLING
Matter of Louissaint, 24 I. & N. Dec. 754 (BIA Mar. 18, 2009) (Florida conviction of burglary of an occupied dwelling, in violation of Florida Statutes 810.02(3)(a), is categorically a conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude, because there is no "realistic probability" that it would be applied to reach conduct that does not involve moral turpitude, and the offense, as defined by its statutory elements is one in which moral turpitude necessarily inheres: "We find . . . that moral turpitude is inherent in the act of burglary of an occupied dwelling itself, and that the respondents unlawful entry into the dwelling of another with the intent to commit any crime therein is a crime involving moral turpitude."), distinguishing Matter of M, 2 I. & N. Dec. 721 (BIA; A.G. 1946).

Ninth Circuit

CRIMES OF MORAL TURPITUDE " BURGLARY " COMMERCIAL BURGLARY
Hernandez-Cruz v. Holder, ___ F.3d ___, ___ (9th Cir. Jul. 7, 2011) (California conviction of second-degree commercial burglary, in violation of Penal Code 459, did not constitute a crime of moral turpitude under the categorical or modified categorical analysis: To hold otherwise would mean that someone who did what Hernandez- Cruz admitted doing"walking into a commercial building with the intent to commit larceny"but then changed his mind and walked out without ever committing any crime, would be guilty of a CIMT.).