Crimes of Moral Turpitude

 

Malicious destruction of property has been held to involve moral turpitude.[111] 

 

Hernandez-Robledo v. INS, 777 F.2d 536 (9th Cir. 1985) (conviction of malicious destruction of property held a crime of moral turpitude: “While we do not announce a per se rule that equates every incident of property destruction with moral turpitude, we believe the BIA to be properly within its discretion in finding that Hernandez failed this requirement”);

Circella v. Sahli, 216 F.2d 33 (7th Cir. 1954) (conviction for violation of anti-racketeering law);

Matter of Esfandiary, 16 I. & N. Dec. 659 (BIA 1979) (since conviction of malicious trespass under Florida Statutes § 821.18 required a finding of an intent to commit petit larceny, which is a crime involving moral turpitude, the trespass conviction is a CMT);

Matter of PM, 4 I. & N. Dec. 461 (BIA 1951) (attempt to wreck train, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1992, held CMT);

Matter of G, 4 I. & N. Dec. 409 (BIA 1951) (tampering with vessel’s engine, with intent to injure and endanger the safety of the vessel, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 502, held CMT);

Matter of M, 3 I. & N. Dec. 272 (BIA 1948) (maliciously and wantonly injuring and destroying personal property of another, to wit, two hogs, by stabbing, striking, and killing them with an axe, in violation of Article 6, § 23-576, Volume 3, Oregon Penal Code is an offense involving moral turpitude);

Matter of M, 2 I. & N. Dec. 629 (BIA 1946) (federal conviction of willful destruction or injury to war materials in wartime, in violation of 50 U.S.C. § 102, held CMT); 

Matter of M, 2 I. & N. Dec. 469 (BIA 1946) (conviction of malicious mischief in violation of New York Penal Law § 1433 is not a crime involving moral turpitude, where the statute is so broad as to include offenses which do and offenses which do not involve moral turpitude, and the record of conviction fails to show with sufficient particularity what offense was actually committed).

 

Tampering with vessel motor.

 

Matter of G, 4 I. & N. Dec. 409 (BIA 1951) (conviction of tampering with motive power of vessel, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 502 (now see § 2275) is an offense which involves moral turpitude).

 

Train Wrecking.

 

Matter of PM, 4 I. & N. Dec. 461 (BIA 1951) (conviction of attempt to wreck a train operated in interstate commerce in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1992 is an offense involving moral turpitude, since criminal intent is an essential element of the offense).

 

Property damage without evil intent.  On the other hand, damaging private property has been held NOT to involve moral turpitude where evil intent is not an essential element of the offense.

 

Rodriguez-Herrera v. INS, 52 F.3d 238 (9th Cir. Apr. 6, 1995) (second-degree malicious mischief, knowingly and maliciously causing physical damage to property of another in amount exceeding $250, under Revised Code of Washington § 9A.48.080, was a relatively minor offense and did not necessarily involve a base act contrary to moral standards so as to qualify as a crime of moral turpitude);

Matter of N, 8 I. & N. Dec. 466 (BIA 1959) (Delaware and Illinois convictions for malicious mischief, in violation of Delaware Penal Code § 692, held not to be crime of moral turpitude, since statute encompasses crimes which both do and do not involve moral turpitude, and record of conviction failed to show with particularity that misconduct on which conviction was based was inherently base or depraved);

Matter of B, 2 I. & N. Dec. 867 (BIA 1947) (Canadian conviction of malicious mischief for damaging a mailbox did not involve moral turpitude).

Matter of C, 2 I. & N. Dec. 716 (INS Central Office 1946, BIA 1947) (conviction of damaging private property, i.e., malicious mischief [“That he did without colour of right willfully do damage to private property, to wit, break a glass in the door of a certain building”] in violation of Canada Criminal Code § 539 does not involve moral turpitude);

Matter of M, 2 I. & N. Dec. 686 (BIA 1946) (conviction of unlawful destruction of railway telegraph property in violation of Canada Criminal Code § 517(c) does not involve moral turpitude);

 

Courts are split on whether malicious mischief is a crime of moral turpitude.

 

Compare United States ex rel. Sirtie v. Commissioner of Immigration, 6 F.2d 233 (E.D.N.Y. 1925) (CMT), with Rodriguez-Herrara v. INS, Civ. No. 93-70645 (9th Cir. Apr. 6, 1995) (not CMT).

[111] 9 U.S. Dep’t of State, Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) § 40.21(a) N.2.3-1(b)(1).