Crimes of Moral Turpitude

Adultery was formerly held to bar a showing of Good Moral Character, but that provision was repealed.[181]

Pollard v. Lyon, 91 U.S. 225, 23 L.Ed. 308 (1876) (dictum in slander action); United States ex rel. Huber v. Sibray, 178 F. 144 (C.C.D.Pa. 1910), rev’d on other grounds, 185 F. 401 (3d Cir. 1911);

Dickhoff v. Shaughnessy, 142 F.Supp. 535 (D.N.Y. 1956) (Congress could not have intended to authorize the wholesale deportation of noncitizens who, accidentally, artificially, unknowingly, or unconsciously in appearance only, are found to have technically committed adultery), distinguished by In re N, 233 F.Supp. 50 (D.Va. 1964);

Application of Barug, 76 F.Supp. 407 (D.Cal. 1948) (adultery not a crime involving moral turpitude so as to prevent a showing of good moral character);

Tourny v. Reimer, 8 F.Supp. 91 (S.D.N.Y. 1934) (admission of having cohabited with nonspouse in New York, illegal under New York law, held CMT, citing Matter of H, 7 I. & N. Dec. 616 (BIA 1957);

Matter of C, 3 I. & N. Dec 790 (BIA 1949) (New Jersey conviction of “open lewdness,” where the indictment charged that the noncitizen had unlawfully and openly cohabited with a woman not his wife, held CMT);

Matter of A, 3 I. & N. Dec. 168 (BIA 1948) (Massachusetts conviction of adultery in 1928, in violation of § 14, Chapter 272, Laws of Massachusetts, held to be crime involving moral turpitude);

Matter of O, 2 I. & N. Dec. 840 (BIA 1947) (adultery need not constitute a crime of moral turpitude, since a terminated “adulterous” relationship, carried on during the five-year period the noncitizen is required to show Good Moral Character under the provisions of § 199(c) of the Immigration Act of 1917, as amended, need not bar him from making such a showing as to moral character, where such relationship injured no one, no family was broken up, the public was not offended, and the noncitizen had no other blemish on his record).

            Cf. Ex parte Rocha, 30 F.2d 823 (S.D.Tex. 1929).

More recently, an administrative policy arose NOT to consider an admission of adultery, in the absence of a conviction, to be a CMT.

Talavera v. Pederson, 334 F.2d 52 (6th Cir. 1964) (disapproved on other grounds, Cheng Fan Kwok v. INS, 392 U.S. 206, 20 L.Ed. 1037, 88 S.Ct. 1970 (1968), referring to the “administrative policy of long standing.”).

            But see Matter of Ellis, 144 F.Supp. 448 (D.N.Y. 1956), aff’d, 238 F.2d 235 (2d Cir. 1956) (the court held deportation proper, where noncitizen admitted having committed adultery during deportation proceedings);

Cf. Matter of Russo, 259 F.Supp. 230 (D.N.Y. 1966) (adultery during Good Moral Character period bars showing of GMC for naturalization purposes under INA § 101(f)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)(2)).

Bastardy is held NOT to be a crime involving moral turpitude.[182]

Matter of D, 1 I. & N. Dec. 186 (BIA 1941) (bearing a child out of wedlock, or bastardy, in Massachusetts is not a crime involving moral turpitude, since bastardy is not a crime in the criminal sense, but more akin to a private wrong for which there is redress to the party wronged in the form of maintenance, either to the child or mother or both).

[181] The State Department indicated adultery involves moral turpitude.  9 U.S. Dep’t of State, Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) § 40.21(a) N.2.3-3(a).

[182] 9 U.S. Dep’t of State, Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) § 40.21(a) N.2.3-3(b)(2) (bastardy is defined as “the offense of begetting a bastard child”).