Mendez v. Mukasey, 547 F.3d 345 (2d Cir. Nov. 6, 2008) (Connecticut conviction for violation of C.G.S 53a-119(6), 53a-122(a)(4), first degree larceny by defrauding a public community, which requires intent to wrongfully deprive another of property by making a knowingly false claim for benefits, is a crime involving moral turpitude).

Mehboob v. Attorney General, 549 F.3d 272 (3d Cir. Nov. 26, 2008) (Pennsylvania conviction of indecent assault, under 18 Pa. Cons.Stat. 3126(a)(8), for touching the breast of a 15-year-old child, a strict liability offense, is a crime involving moral turpitude, because the offense combines a reprehensible act with deliberate conduct).

Mendez v. Mukasey, 547 F.3d 345 (2d Cir. Nov. 6, 2008) (Connecticut conviction of first degree larceny in the form of "defrauding a public community," in violation of Connecticut General Statutes 53a-122(a)(4) and 53a-119(6), is a crime involving moral turpitude for the purposes of INA 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I), " a conviction for defrauding a public community requires proof of an intent to wrongfully deprive another of property by making a knowingly false claim for benefits").

Latu v. Mukasey, 547 F.3d 1070 (9th Cir. Nov. 3, 2008) (Hawaii conviction for hit & run, in violation of Hawaii Revised Statute 291C-12.5, is not a crime of moral turpitude), following Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163 (9th Cir. 2008).

Matter of Silva-Trevino, 24 I. & N. Dec. 687 (A.G. Nov. 9, 2008) (Texas conviction for indecency with a child, in violation of Texas Penal Code 21.11(a)(1) is a crime involving moral turpitude if the actor, in fact, knew or should have known that the victim was under 18 years old).



Note: this decision is horribly incorrect, changing 100 years of CMT law, and should be attacked. See http://www.bibdaily.com/pdfs/Silva%20Trevino%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf, for amici brief outlining many arguments against this terrible decision.

"Arriving Aliens" and Adjustment of Status: What is the Impact of the Governments Interim Rule of May 12, 2006 (Updated November 5, 2008).
http://www.ailf.org/lac/pa/lac_pa_070416_biaarraliens.pdf

United States v. Youssef, 547 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. Nov. 5, 2008) (federal conviction for violation of 18 U.S.C. 1015(a), making a false statement in an immigration document, does not require the false statement to be material; even though prior conviction qualified for the petty offense exception to inadmissibility, and was therefore immaterial to admission, the noncitizen was required to disclose the fact of conviction).

Abebe v. Mukasey, 548 F.3d 787 (9th Cir. Nov. 20, 2008) (en banc) (a waiver under former INA 212(c) waives only inadmissibility, not deportability), overruling Tapia-Acuna v. INS, 640 F.3d 223 (9th Cir. 1981) (INA 212(c) waives both inadmissibility and deportability).



Note: this is the only jurisdiction that holds that INA 212(c) does not apply to any ground of deportation. This should not prevent noncitizens in deportation proceedings from applying for INA 212(c) in conjunction with an application for adjustment of status.

Mendez v. Mukasey, 547 F.3d 345 (2d Cir. Nov. 6, 2008) ("We afford Chevron deference to the BIA's interpretation of the undefined statutory term "moral turpitude," but we owe no deference to the BIA's construction of state criminal statutes. Gill v. INS, 420 F.3d 82, 89 (2d Cir.2005). Accordingly, we review de novo the BIA's determination that a particular state crime falls within the definition of moral turpitude. Id.").

AILIF practice advisory on finality of removal decisions for judicial review purposes. http://www.ailf.org/lac/lac_pa_topics.shtml#section6.