Safe Havens

An intent to deprive the owner of property only temporarily is insufficient to constitute a crime of moral turpitude.[996]  The BIA has held that a conviction can constitute a “theft” conviction, and therefore an aggravated felony, even though the offense does not have an intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property as an essential element.[997]  The BIA, however, was specific in stating that this did not mean such a lower-intent offense now constituted a crime involving moral turpitude: “An offense involving the taking of property need not be a crime involving moral turpitude in order to be considered a ‘theft’ offense [as an aggravated felony].”[998] 

[996] Matter of Grazley, 14 I. & N. Dec. 330, 333 (BIA 1973) (“Ordinarily, a conviction for theft is considered to involve moral turpitude only when a permanent taking is intended”).

[997] Matter of VZS, 22 I. & N. Dec. 1338 (BIA 2000) (a taking of property constitutes a “theft offense” within the  definition of an aggravated felony, whenever there is criminal intent to deprive the owner of the rights and benefits of ownership, even if such deprivation is less than total or permanent, and a California conviction for violating Vehicle Code § 10851 constitutes an aggravated felony). 

[998] Id. at n.12 (“We distinguish the present case from our decision in Matter of D, 1 I. & N. Dec. 143 (BIA 1941), where we held that a conviction under a predecessor statute to section 10851 was not a crime involving moral turpitude because the statute in question could include a mere temporary taking, as well as a permanent deprivation of the vehicle. Id. at 145. An offense involving the taking of property need not be a crime involving moral turpitude in order to be considered a “theft” offense. More pertinent to this case, however, is our finding in Matter of Grazley, 14 I. & N. Dec. 330 (BIA 1973), that a taking could constitute “theft” even if it did not include the turpitudinous element of intent to permanently deprive the owner of his or her property.  In Grazley, we reviewed section 283 of the Criminal Code of Canada, which provided for a theft conviction whether the taking was permanent or temporary. Ordinarily, a conviction for theft is considered to involve moral turpitude only when a permanent taking is intended.”).