Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude

Crimes involving moral turpitude, or CIMTs, are a category of offenses defined not by a statutory list but by a century of case law: crimes that are inherently base, vile, or depraved, involving fraud, dishonesty, or serious moral failing. The concept's vagueness is its defining feature, and determining whether an offense qualifies requires analyzing how courts have treated similar crimes.

Classic CIMTs include fraud, theft with intent to permanently deprive, robbery, burglary with intent to commit a CIMT, murder, voluntary manslaughter, rape, and aggravated assault with evil intent. Offenses generally not considered CIMTs include simple assault without aggravation, involuntary manslaughter without intent, and many regulatory offenses. DUI without aggravating factors is typically not a CIMT, though related conduct can be.

How CIMTs are identified

Like aggravated felonies, CIMT analysis uses the categorical approach: adjudicators examine the minimum conduct criminalized by the statute's elements, not the person's actual behavior. If the least culpable conduct under the statute involves moral turpitude, the conviction qualifies; if the statute sweeps in both turpitudinous and non-turpitudinous conduct, the analysis turns to the record of conviction under the modified categorical approach for divisible statutes.

Intent matters enormously. Crimes requiring specific intent to defraud or steal are CIMTs, while strict liability or negligence-based offenses generally are not. This is why two assault statutes can come out differently: one requiring intentional harm may qualify while one covering reckless conduct may not.

The Board of Immigration Appeals' evolving framework for the categorical approach, including its controversial efforts to reshape the methodology, has made CIMT analysis one of the most technically demanding areas of immigration law.

Immigration consequences

CIMTs affect both admissibility and deportability. A noncitizen is inadmissible for a CIMT committed within five years of admission, or for two or more CIMTs at any time, subject to the petty offense exception for a single minor offense with a short maximum sentence. A permanent resident is deportable for a CIMT committed within five years of admission with a potential one-year sentence, or for two CIMTs at any time not arising from a single scheme.

CIMTs also affect good moral character for naturalization, eligibility for cancellation of removal, and discretionary relief generally. Waivers are available for certain CIMT grounds in family-based contexts, requiring a showing of hardship to a qualifying relative or, for older offenses, the passage of fifteen years with rehabilitation.

Because the category is case-law defined rather than listed, outcomes vary by jurisdiction as circuit courts refine the boundaries. The only safe approach is individualized analysis of the specific statute of conviction under current law.

Framework battles and the petty offense exception

The methodology for identifying CIMTs has been contested, with the Board of Immigration Appeals at one point adopting a framework that looked beyond the categorical approach to the underlying facts, then retreating under court pressure. The back-and-forth left a complex precedential landscape where the applicable framework can depend on the circuit. Practitioners must know their jurisdiction's approach before analyzing a conviction.

The petty offense exception provides relief for a single CIMT with a maximum possible sentence of one year or less and an actual sentence under six months, committed by someone with no other CIMT history. The exception reflects proportionality: minor first offenses should not destroy immigration prospects. But its conditions are precise, and a slightly longer sentence or a second offense defeats it.

Juvenile offenses and expunged convictions add further wrinkles. Some expungements eliminate the conviction for immigration purposes while others do not, depending on the expungement's legal basis. The details of the criminal disposition matter as much as the offense itself.

Divisible statutes add a procedural layer: when a criminal statute lists alternative elements, some involving moral turpitude and some not, adjudicators may examine the record of conviction, including the charging document and plea colloquy, to determine which version the respondent was convicted under. This modified categorical approach is limited to elements, not means, a distinction the Supreme Court clarified. Defense counsel's plea-stage record-building thus shapes the immigration analysis years later.

Waivers for CIMT inadmissibility are available in family-based contexts through the standard waiver provisions, requiring hardship to a qualifying relative or the passage of fifteen years with rehabilitation. The waiver analysis weighs the nature of the offense against the equities, and older, isolated offenses with strong rehabilitation fare better. Each waiver application is its own evidentiary case built around the hardship and discretionary factors.

In summary, CIMTs are a judge-made category of dishonest and depraved offenses with serious admissibility and deportability consequences, identified through technical categorical analysis.

Related reading: How Arizona Drug Crimes Are Classified: Misdemeanor vs Felony

This article provides general information only and is not legal advice.

Find a qualified attorney at Justice Lookup.

This article is general information, not legal advice. It does not create an attorney-client relationship.