Crimes of Moral Turpitude

Bigamy has been held to involve moral turpitude.[183] 

Gonzalez-Martinez v. Landon, 203 F.2d 196 (9th Cir. 1953), cert. den., 345 U.S. 998, 73 S.Ct. 1140, 97 L.Ed. 1405 (1953) (bigamy is a crime involving moral turpitude);

Whitty v. Weedin, 68 F.2d 127 (9th Cir. 1933);

United States ex rel. Rosen v Williams, 200 F. 538 (2d Cir. 1912), cert. den., 232 U.S. 722, 58 L.Ed. 814, 34 S.Ct. 329 (1914);

United States ex rel. Rennie v. Brooks, 284 F. 908 (D.Mich. 1922);

Matter of VL, 3 I. & N. Dec. 10 (BIA 1947) (Mexican conviction of bigamy constitutes crime of moral turpitude);

Matter of E, 2 I. & N. Dec. 328 (BIA, AG 1945) (admission of crime of bigamy, in violation of Nevada Compiled Laws § 19138, is an offense which involves moral turpitude, even though the statute does not require criminal intent as an essential element), following Whitty v. Weedin, 68 F.2d 127 (9th Cir. 1933);

Matter of Sam and Sarra C., 1 I. & N. Dec. 525 (BIA 1943) (admission of commission of bigamy in Baja California in violation of Article 831 of the Codigo Penal para el Distrito y Territorias Federales, considered crime of moral turpitude).

Cf. Matter of S, 1 I. & N. Dec. 314 (BIA 1942) (polygamy (bigamy) in violation of § 15, Chapter 272, General Laws of Massachusetts, does not involve moral turpitude, since good faith belief the marriage no longer exists is not a defense).

When the statute does not necessarily entail guilty intent, however, moral turpitude may be absent. 

Braun v. INS, 992 F.2d 1016 (9th Cir. 1993);

Forbes v. Brownell, 149 F.Supp. 848 (D.D.C. 1957) (Canadian conviction of bigamy under Canadian Criminal Code § 308, did not involve moral turpitude, since statute does not require mens rea as an essential element of offense).

Other courts, however, hold that if the noncitizen married a second time in the good faith mistaken belief that the first spouse was dead or had obtained a divorce or annulment, bigamy arising out of the second marriage is NOT a crime involving moral turpitude.

Wong Yow v. Weedin, 33 F.2d 377 (9th Cir. 1929) (doubting whether concubinage sanctioned by Chinese custom, and the taking thereunder of a second wife while the husband’s first wife was living, involved moral turpitude);

Greenwood v. Frick, 233 F. 629 (6th Cir. 1916) (absent proof that the first husband was living at the time of the second marriage, it could not be said that she was guilty of bigamy, nor, in the presence of her belief that he was dead, could it be said that her conduct involved moral turpitude);

Forbes v. Brownell, 149 F.Supp. 848 (D.D.C. 1957) (Canadian offense of bigamy cannot be said inherently to involve moral turpitude, since bigamy can result from an honest mistake of fact as to the validity or existence of a divorce or annulment).

[183] 9 U.S. Dep’t of State, Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) § 40.21(a) N.2.3-3(a).