Determining if something is a CIMT is not always straight-forward. Some seemingly minor offenses are CIMTs. It is not a settled matter.
Matter of RUIZ-LOPEZ, 25 I&N Dec. 551 (BIA 2011)
(1) The offense of driving a vehicle in a manner indicating a wanton or willful disregard for the lives or property of others while attempting to elude a pursuing police vehicle in violation of section 46.61.024 of the Revised Code of Washington is a crime involving moral turpitude.
(2) The maximum sentence possible for an offense, rather than the standard range of sentencing under a State’s sentencing guidelines, determines an alien’s eligibility for the “petty offense” exception under section 212(a)(2)(A)(ii)(II) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(ii)(II) (2006).
Matter of AHORTALEJO-GUZMAN, 25 I&N Dec. 465 (BIA 2011)
Evidence outside of an alien’s record of conviction may properly be considered in determining whether the alien has been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude only where the conviction record itself does not conclusively demonstrate whether the alien was convicted of engaging in conduct that constitutes a crime involving moral turpitude. Matter of Silva-Trevino, 24 I&N Dec. 687 (A.G. 2008), followed
Matter of Ramos, 23 I&N Dec. 336 (BIA 2002)
(1) In cases arising in circuits where the federal court of appeals has not decided whether the offense of driving under the influence is a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 16(b) (2000), an offense will be considered a crime of violence if it is committed at least recklessly and involves a substantial risk that the perpetrator may resort to the use of force to carry out the crime; otherwise, where the circuit court has ruled on the issue, the law of the circuit will be applied to cases arising in that jurisdiction.
(2) The offense of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor in violation of chapter 90, section 24(1)(a)(1) of the Massachusetts General Laws is not a felony that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense and is therefore not a crime of violence. Matter of Puente, Interim Decision 3412 (BIA 1999), and Matter of Magallanes, Interim Decision 3341 (BIA 1998), overruled.
Matter of Torres-Varela, 23 I&N Dec. 78 (BIA 2001)
Under Arizona law, the offense of aggravated driving under the influence (“DUI”) with two or more prior DUI convictions is not a crime involving moral turpitude. Matter of Lopez-Meza, Interim Decision 3423 (BIA 1999), distinguished.
Lopez, 22 I&N Dec. 1188 (BIA 1999)
Under Arizona law, the
offense of aggravated driving under the influence,
which requires the driver to know that he or she is prohibited from driving under any circumstances, is a crime involving moral turpitude.
The simplest CIMTto discuss is theft............
Petty Theft With a Prior Under Penal Code 666
Just as there is an upside to being charged with a first-offense shoplifting offense, there is a downside to being convicted of petty theft if you have suffered a prior theft-related conviction for which you were incarcerated.
If that is the case, under California Penal Code 666 "Petty Theft with a Prior", you may face:
A maximum one-year county jail sentence (if the charge was filed as a misdemeanor), or
16 months, or two or three years in the California State Prison (if the offense was filed as a felony).
It should also be noted that petty theft poses additional problems for aliens and immigrants. Petty theft is considered a crime of "moral turpitude" for purposes of the U.S.'s policy on deportation.9
In addition, an alien or immigrant who suffers a petty theft conviction with a prior may face an "aggravated felony" for purposes of sentencing enhancements.10
Here is a particularly interesting discussion on reckless driving in Washington State: http://www.defensenet.org/immigrati...ss Driving Practice Advisory 3-29-10.doc/view
An excerpt:
II. Possible Immigration Consequences Of A Conviction Under This Statute
A. Reckless Driving (RD) As A Crime Involving Moral Turpitude (CIMT)
Under current practice here in Washington state RD is not being charged by the government nor classified by the immigration courts as a CIMT. There is also no immigration case law finding that Reckless Driving is (or is not) a CIMT, which suggests that it is not often charged as a CIMT. However, the issue remains somewhat unclear in light of the structure of the Washington statute and recent developments in immigration caselaw.
Both the BIA and the federal courts have repeatedly held that offenses are CIMTs where they have mens rea requirements that the defendant acted intentionally or knowingly coupled with the element of causing serious harm or acting in disregard of causing serious harm. While RCW 46.61.500 is denoted as “reckless driving” the mens rea of the statute differs from 9A.08.010’s definition of recklessness. but it still contains the basic ingredient of knowing disregard of risk. Washington courts have deemed that wanton or willful disregard does not require that anyone have been in danger or was harmed, and it is arguably a higher standard of culpability than that of RCW 9A.080.010(c). Thus, there are strong arguments to assert that convictions under RCW 46.61.500 are not CIMTs, especially where a plea statement is based upon willful disregard to the safety of property .
The analysis of whether RD is a CIMT has been complicated by the Attorney General’s 2008 decision in Matter of Silva-Trevino. In Silva-Trevino the Attorney General, inter alia, purported to establish a consistent definition of the term “crime involving moral turpitude.” In so doing he stated, “[t]he hallmark of moral turpitude is a reprehensible act committed with an appreciable level of consciousness or deliberation.” The decision goes on to state, “the foregoing general definition also encompasses the many judicial precedents recognizing that crimes involving moral turpitude involve reprehensible conduct that is committed intentionally or with some other form of scienter such as willfulness or recklessness.” It also “includes crimes that have no specific act involving recognized moral turpitude, but where the crime itself causes “significant societal harm” and the defendant did it “willfully and knowingly.” Both the Silva-Trevino decision and the definition of what constitutes a CIMT continue to be the subject of much present litigation.
