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).

Congress limited the deportation ground triggered by a court finding of a violation of a domestic violation protective order, under INA 237(a)(2)(E)(ii), 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(E)(ii), to protective orders against "credible threats of violence, repeated harassment [etc.]," as opposed to just protective orders against "threats of violence and harassment. (Emphasis added.) This certainly implies that the person must have been found in violation of the portion of a protective order that protects against credible threats, and does not apply unless the protection order specifically does so.

A plea to simple witness dissuasion, in violation of California Penal Code 136.1(b), does not trigger deportation under any ground, at least if there is no sentence imposed of one year or more in custody, whether or not execution is suspended. See generally N. TOOBY & J. ROLLIN, SAFE HAVENS: HOW TO IDENTIFY AND CONSTRUCT NON-DEPORTABLE CONVICTIONS (2005) (updated monthly on www.NortonTooby.com.

There may well be a factual basis for a plea to this offense in many domestic cases. For example, the defendant may have urged his wife: Honey, please dont call the cops.

Kawashima v. Holder, 132 S.Ct. 1166 (Feb. 21, 2012) (federal conviction of willfully making a false tax return, in violation of 26 U.S.C. 7206(a), and aiding and assisting in the preparation of a false tax return, under 26 U.S.C. 7206(2), constituted fraud offense aggravated felonies, under INA 101(a)(43)(M)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(M)(i), because they are crimes involv[ing] fraud or deceit in which the loss to the victim(s) exceeds $10,000, even though they are not listed as aggravated felonies under INA 101(a)(43)(M)(ii), 8 U.S.C.

Kawashima v. Holder, 132 S.Ct. 1166 (Feb. 21, 2012) (federal conviction of aiding and assisting in the preparation of a false tax return, under 26 U.S.C. 7206(2), constituted a fraud offense aggravated felony, under INA 101(a)(43)(M)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(M)(i): We conclude that Mrs. Kawashima's conviction establishes that, by knowingly and willfully assisting her husband's filing of a materially false tax return, Mrs. Kawashima also committed a felony that involved deceit.).

Kawashima v. Holder, 132 S.Ct. 1166 (Feb. 21, 2012) (statutory definition of fraud aggravated felony, under INA 101(a)(43)(M)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(M)(i), courts general test for whether the conviction was for an offense involving fraud or deceit was whether it was an offense with elements that necessarily entail fraudulent or deceitful conduct.).

In Kawashima v. Holder, 132 S.Ct. 1166 (Feb. 21, 2012), the Supreme Court held that federal convictions of willfully making a false tax return, in violation of 26 U.S.C. 7206(a), and aiding and assisting in the preparation of a false tax return, under 26 U.S.C. 7206(2), constituted fraud offense aggravated felonies, under INA 101(a)(43)(M)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(M)(i).

Kawashima v. Holder, 132 S.Ct. 1166 (Feb. 21, 2012) (both the majority and the dissent believe that the rule of lenity would have been applicable to require interpretation of the deportation statute in favor of the noncitizen, if the Court had found the statute to be ambiguous).

The Paulus defense, requiring a controlled substances offense to involve a federally-listed controlled substance, may have some limitations. See Martinez-Espinoza, 25 I&N Dec. 118, 121 (BIA 2009) ("Second, we have long drawn a distinction between crimes involving the possession or distribution of a particular drug and those involving other conduct associated with the drug trade in general. Thus, the requirement of a correspondence between the Federal and State controlled substance schedules, embraced by Matter of Paulus, 11 I&N Dec.

Kawashima v. Holder, 132 U.S. 1166, 1172 (Feb. 21, 2012) ("When subparagraph (M) was enacted, the term deceit meant the act or process of deceiving (as by falsification, concealment, or cheating). Webster's Third New International Dictionary 584 (1993). Mr. Kawashima's conviction under 7206(1) establishes that he knowingly and willfully submitted a tax return that was false as to a material matter. He therefore committed a felony that involved deceit.).