Theft Conviction And Adjustment Of Status
Author: Criminal Immigration Attorney Alena Shautsova
In a recent decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), the court held that convictions for retail theft under Pennsylvania law are not categorically considered crimes involving moral turpitude (CIMTs). This decision is crucial for immigrants facing removal proceedings based on prior convictions, as CIMTs can lead to deportation or inadmissibility. The BIA’s analysis in this case focused on whether the Pennsylvania retail theft statute requires an intent to permanently deprive the owner of property, a key element in determining whether a crime qualifies as a CIMT.
Legal Context: Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude
A crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT) is a legal term used in U.S. immigration law to describe an offense that involves conduct that is inherently base, vile, or depraved, contrary to societal standards of morality. Convictions for CIMTs can have severe immigration consequences, including deportation, inadmissibility, and denial of certain immigration benefits, such as adjustment of status. As such, whether a crime qualifies as a CIMT is a critical determination in many immigration cases.
Traditionally, theft crimes, including retail theft, have often been classified as CIMTs because they typically involve an intent to permanently deprive the victim of their property. However, not all theft statutes require this intent, and whether a conviction for retail theft qualifies as a CIMT depends on the specific wording of the statute under which the individual was convicted.
The Case: Retail Theft in Pennsylvania
In this case, the respondent was convicted of retail theft under Pennsylvania law. The statute in question, 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3929(a)(1), covers a wide range of conduct, including taking merchandise with the intent of depriving the merchant of the possession, use, or benefit of the merchandise. The key issue in this case was whether the statute requires proof of an intent to permanently deprive the merchant of their property, a necessary element for a theft offense to be classified as a CIMT.
The BIA applied the “categorical approach” to determine whether retail theft under Pennsylvania law is categorically a CIMT. Under this approach, the court looks at the statutory language of the offense to see if every violation of the statute would necessarily involve morally turpitudinous conduct. If the statute covers conduct that does not necessarily involve moral turpitude, then the offense cannot be categorically classified as a CIMT.
The BIA’s Decision
In its ruling, the BIA found that Pennsylvania’s retail theft statute does not categorically require an intent to permanently deprive the owner of their property. The statute is broad enough to cover conduct that may not rise to the level of moral turpitude, such as temporarily taking possession of merchandise without the intent to permanently deprive the owner. Because the statute encompasses conduct that does not involve moral turpitude, the BIA concluded that a conviction under the statute is not categorically a CIMT.
The BIA emphasized that in cases where a statute is divisible—meaning it lists multiple ways the crime can be committed—immigration judges may apply the “modified categorical approach” to examine the record of conviction. This includes reviewing documents such as the indictment, plea agreement, or jury instructions to determine whether the specific conduct for which the individual was convicted involved moral turpitude. However, in this case, the broad language of the statute made it clear that a retail theft conviction under Pennsylvania law cannot be categorically classified as a CIMT.
Implications of the Decision
This decision has important implications for noncitizens who have been convicted of retail theft under Pennsylvania law and are facing removal proceedings. By holding that retail theft under this statute is not categorically a CIMT, the BIA has provided a potential defense for individuals who might otherwise be subject to removal based on a CIMT conviction.
For immigration attorneys, this ruling highlights the importance of closely examining the specific statutes under which clients have been convicted. Even when a crime might traditionally be considered a CIMT, the statutory language and the facts of the case may provide grounds for challenging the classification of the offense as a CIMT. In cases involving divisible statutes, the modified categorical approach can also provide a valuable tool for defending clients against removal.
It is also worth noting that this decision reflects a broader trend in immigration law, where courts are increasingly scrutinizing the classification of crimes as CIMTs. In recent years, the courts have emphasized the need for precision in determining whether an offense involves moral turpitude, and have increasingly rejected categorical classifications that sweep too broadly.
The BIA’s decision that retail theft convictions under Pennsylvania law are not categorically CIMTs provides significant relief for noncitizens facing removal based on such convictions. This ruling underscores the importance of carefully analyzing the statutory language and record of conviction in cases involving potential CIMTs. For noncitizens and their attorneys, this decision represents an opportunity to challenge removal based on prior convictions that may not truly involve morally turpitudinous conduct.
As immigration law continues to evolve, it is essential for practitioners to stay informed about developments in how crimes are classified under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The BIA’s decision in this case is a key example of the importance of challenging broad categorizations of crimes as CIMTs, and of the need for careful legal analysis in defending noncitizens against removal.
If you need help with your Immigration case, call 917 885 2261, or book it here.