Forgery, in all its degrees, involves an intent to defraud, and is thus a crime of moral turpitude.[151]

 

Morasch v. INS, 363 F.2d 30 (9th Cir. 1966);

United States ex rel. McKenzie v. Savoretti, 200 F.2d 546 (5th Cir. 1952) (forgery and uttering);

Baer v. Norene, 79 F.2d 340 (9th Cir. 1935) (uttering a forged bank check);

Robinson v. Day, 51 F.2d 1022 (2d Cir. 1931) (New York conviction of second-degree forgery);

Abbenante v. Butterfield, 112 F.Supp. 324 (E.D.Mich. 1953) (uttering forged prescriptions), aff’d per curiam, 212 F.2d 794 (6th Cir. 1964);

Ponzi v. Ward, 7 F.Supp. 736 (D.Mass. 1934);

Matter of Jimenez, 14 I. & N. Dec. 442 (BIA 1973) (New York conviction of criminal possession of forgery devices with intent to use them for the purpose of forgery is conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude);

Matter of Jensen, 10 I. & N. Dec. 747 (BIA 1964) (notwithstanding forgery and uttering are defined as separate offenses in Canada Criminal Code § § 309(1) and 311, respectively, a conviction in Canada of forgery and uttering constitutes, under standards prevailing in the United States, the commission of a single crime involving moral turpitude);

Matter of S, 9 I. & N. Dec. 688 (BIA 1962) (conspiracy to commit forgery in the third degree and uttering a forged instrument);

Matter of M, 9 I. & N. Dec. 132 (BIA 1960) (Italian conviction of forgery of public documents in violation of § § 275, 278, and 284 of the Italian Criminal Code of 1889 and § § 476 and 482 of the Criminal Code of 1930 is a crime involving moral turpitude);

Matter of F, 6 I. & N. Dec. 783 (BIA 1955) (Massachusetts conviction of accessory before the fact to uttering in violation of § 5 of Chapter 267 of the Laws of Massachusetts held to be a crime involving moral turpitude);

Matter of O’B, 6 I. & N. Dec. 280 (BIA 1954) (forgery of a narcotic prescription in violation of California Health and Safety Code § 11715 is a crime involving moral turpitude, although forgery under the narcotic law does not require an intent to defraud as an element of the crime, since it requires a willful act);

Matter of SC, 3 I. & N. Dec. 350 (BIA 1948) (conviction of uttering a forged instrument in violation of Article 205 of the Penal Code of the State of Guanajuato, Mexico, involves moral turpitude);

Matter of MYC, 3 I. & N. Dec. 76 (BIA 1947) (admission of forgery of an application for a United States passport, which is not specified in federal statutes as a crime, since forgery of a passport requires fabrication of the consular seal or signature, is not deemed adequate if the noncitizen fails to admit the legal conclusion that he committed such offense notwithstanding his admission of conduct constituting the essential elements of such offense; nor is such admission considered voluntary under the circumstances in this case, and, accordingly, the evidence does not sustain a ground of exclusion based on an admission of such offense).

 

Offenses related to forgery have also generally been held to involve moral turpitude. 

 

Matter of Jimenez, 14 I. & N. Dec. 442 (BIA 1973) (New York conviction of criminal possession of forgery devices with intent to use them for the purpose of forgery is conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude);

Matter of Acosta, 14 I. & N. Dec. 338 (BIA 1973) (transportation of forged security in foreign commerce involved moral turpitude);

Matter of Fernandez, 14 I. & N. Dec. 24 (BIA 1972) (transporting forged securities in interstate commerce is crime involving moral turpitude);

Matter of Yanez-Jaquez, 13 I. & N. Dec. 449 (BIA 1970) (passing forged instrument is crime involving moral turpitude);

Matter of LR, 7 I. & N. Dec. 318 (BIA 1956) (Texas conviction of knowingly attempting to pass a forged instrument in violation of Texas Penal Code § § 979, 996, since a general intent to defraud is required as an essential element).

[151] 9 U.S. Dep’t of State, Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) § 40.21(a) N.2.3-1(b)(7).

Sixth Circuit

CRIMES OF MORAL TURPITUDE " FORGERY " TRAFFIC IN ID DOCUMENTS
Yeremin v. Holder, 707 F.3d 616 (6th Cir. Feb. 14, 2013) (federal conviction of 18 U.S.C. 1028(f), for conspiracy to traffic in identification documents in violation of 1028(a)(3), which prohibits knowingly possessing with intent to use unlawfully or transfer unlawfully five or more identification documents or false identification documents, constituted a crime of moral turpitude because the conduct prohibited by the statute inherently involves deceit).

CRIMES OF MORAL TURPITUDE " FORGERY " TRAFFIC IN ID DOCUMENTS
Yeremin v. Holder, ___ F.3d ___, 2013 WL 535755 (6th Cir. Feb. 14, 2013) (federal conviction of 18 U.S.C. 1028(f), for conspiracy to traffic in identification documents in violation of 1028(a)(3), which prohibits knowingly possessing with intent to use unlawfully or transfer unlawfully five or more identification documents or false identification documents, constituted a crime of moral turpitude because the conduct prohibited by the statute inherently involves deceit).

Eighth Circuit

CRIMES OF MORAL TURPITUDE " FORGERY
Miranda-Romero v. Lynch, ___ F.3d ___, 2015 WL 4746166 (8th Cir. Aug. 12, 2015) (California conviction of forgery, under Penal Code 472, categorically constitutes crime of moral turpitude, since entire statute requires intent to defraud). Note: This decision is erroneous. The plain language of the statute includes three groups of offenses, of which only the first expressly requires intent to defraud. The Eighth Circuit relies on California decisions discussing the statute as a whole, which do not consider whether there is a different mental element for each of the three groups of offenses stated in the disjunctive. In particular, the third group of offenses, penalizing one who has in his possession any such [fraudulently] counterfeited seal or impression thereof, knowing it to be counterfeited, and willfully conceals the same, is guilty of forgery, is innocent of an intent to defraud under the plain language of the statute. It is doubtful that most Ninth Circuit panels would agree with this sloppy decision.

Ninth Circuit

CRIMES OF MORAL TURPITUDE " FORGERY
Espino-Castillo v. Holder, ___ F.3d ___, 2014 WL 5462309 (9th Cir. Oct. 29, 2014) (Arizona conviction of forgery, in violation of Arizona Revised Statutes 13-2002, is categorically a crime involving moral turpitude because the statute requires fraudulent intent; Beltran-Tirado v. INS, has not been applied to a state statute); discussing Beltran-Tirado v. INS, 213 F.3d 1179 (9th Cir. May 31, 2000) (an amendment to the social security laws that granted immunity from prosecution for longstanding resident aliens who used a false social security number to obtain employment expressed congressional intent that such conduct did not establish moral turpitude for immigration purposes).

Tenth Circuit

CRIME OF MORAL TURPTIUDE " CRIMINAL IMPERSONATION " SSN
Veloz-Luvevano v. Lynch, __ F.3d __ (10th Cir. Aug. 31, 2015) (Colorado conviction for criminal impersonation, in violation of Col.Rev.Stat. 18"5"113(1)(d), for possession of a forged social security card to allow him to work, is a categorical crime of moral turpitude for immigration purposes). NOTE: The judge in this case had clear distain for the noncitizen, and dismissed out of hand, what were likely legitimate minimum conduct arguments. The court also made no mention of Beltran-Tirado v. INS, 213 F.3d 1179 (9th Cir. 2000).