(B)  Crimes of Moral Turpitude.

 

Driving while intoxicated generally does not constitute a CMT.[200]

 

Board of Immigration Appeals:

 

Matter of Torres-Varela, 23 I. & N. Dec. 78 (BIA 2001) (en banc) (third offense DUI in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § § 28-692(A)(1), 28-697(A)(2), (B), (F), (H)(1), (I), (J), is not a crime of moral turpitude).

 

Ninth Circuit:

 

Hernandez-Martinez v. Ashcroft, 329 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. May 27, 2003), rehearing denied, 343 F.3d 1075 (9th Cir. 2003) (Arizona conviction of aggravated driving or being in actual physical control of a vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs in violation of Arizona Revised Statutes § § 28-692(A)(1) and 28-697(A)(1), did not constitute crime of moral turpitude, since statute was divisible in forbidding CMT behavior, as well as non-CMT behavior, because one may be convicted under it for sitting in one’s own car in one’s own driveway with the key in the ignition and a bottle of beer in one’s hand, and the record of conviction did not establish that the defendant was convicted of violating the CMT portion of the statute).

[200] See N. Tooby, J. Rollin & J. Foster, Crimes of Moral Turpitude § 9.87 (2005).

Sixth Circuit

RELIEF - DISCRETIONARY DECISIONS - CONSIDERATION OF DUI CONVICTIONS
Kouljinski v. Keisler, 505 F.3d 534 (6th Cir. Oct. 16, 2007) (immigration judge may consider noncitizen's three convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol in denying the application for asylum as a matter of discretion).

Ninth Circuit

CRIME OF MORAL TURPITUDE - DRIVING ON SUSPENDED LICENSE UNDER INFLUENCE VERSUS BEING IN CONTROL OF VEHICLE
Hernandez-Martinez v. Ashcroft, 343 F.3d 1075 (9th Cir. 2003) (Arizona conviction under former ARS 28-697A is "divisible" in that the offense can be committed by either driving on a suspended license while under the influence of alcohol [a crime of moral turpitude], or by merely being in actual physical control of a vehicle [not a crime of moral turpitude]).