Crimes of Moral Turpitude

(C)

Federal vs. State Definition.  Immigration counsel can argue that a person convicted of aiding and abetting the commission of a CMT is not removable unless the definition of aiding and abetting under the law of the jurisdiction of conviction is coextensive with the federal definition of aiding and abetting. For example, in California, a person can be convicted of aiding and abetting on the basis of mere encouragement, even if no actual assistance is provided.[16]  This same argument could be used to argue that a conviction of aiding and abetting a crime of moral turpitude does not necessarily fall within the CMT grounds of removal.[17]  Criminal defense counsel, however, should assume that a conviction of aiding a deportable offense also constitutes a deportable offense and avoid such a conviction if possible.

[16] See United States v. Corona-Sanchez, 291 F.3d 1201 (9th Cir. 2002) (en banc).

[17] But see Matter of O'Cealleagh, 23 I. & N. Dec. 976 (BIA 2006) (Irish conviction for aiding and abetting murder is a crime of moral turpitude).  The BIA in this case noted, but did not address, the issue that Irish aiding and abetting does not necessarily meet U.S. standards of aiding and abetting, since the parties had conceded that the offense was a CMT.  See also Cuevas-Gaspar v. Ashcroft, 430 F.3d 1013, 1021 n.4 (9th Cir. Dec. 7, 2005) (court did not reach question whether Washington conviction of accomplice to residential burglary, under in violation of Washington Revised Code § § 9A.52.025(1), 9A.08.020(3) constituted crime involving moral turpitude because respondent did not argue accomplice conviction affected the determination whether the conviction constituted a crime of moral turpitude).