Munoz-Rivera v. Rosen, 986 F.3d 587

Petitioner Fernando Munoz‑Rivera, a Mexican national, entered the U.S. without inspection in 2010 and was convicted in 2015 under 42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(7)(B) for falsely representing an unauthorized Social Security number.
DHS charged him as removable for having been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT) under INA § 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) and pretermitted his application for cancellation of removal under INA § 240A(b)(1).
The Immigration Judge sustained the charge, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed, concluding the § 408(a)(7)(B) offense is a CIMT.
Munoz‑Rivera petitioned the Fifth Circuit for review contesting that his conviction is a CIMT.
The Fifth Circuit reviewed de novo whether the offense is a CIMT, applied the categorical approach, and deferred to the BIA’s interpretation of “moral turpitude.”
The court held that § 408(a)(7)(B) necessarily involves intentional deception and therefore categorically constitutes a CIMT, dismissing the petition for review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether use of an unauthorized SSN under 42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(7)(B) is a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT)	Munoz‑Rivera: statute’s broad “any … purpose” language could cover non‑turpitudinous conduct, so not categorically a CIMT	Government: statute requires intentional deception ("intent to deceive"), and deception/dishonesty is a CIMT	Held: Yes. The offense necessarily involves intentional deception and thus is a CIMT
Whether deceptive intent alone suffices or an additional aggravating element (e.g., actual harm or intent to defraud government) is required	Munoz‑Rivera: CIMT should require further aggravating element or showing of harm to gov't/person	Government/BIA: deceptive intent is dispositive; harm to government may be implicit	Held: Deceptive intent is sufficient; court also found the offense necessarily harms government functions if needed

Villegas‑Sarabia v. Sessions, 874 F.3d 871 (5th Cir. 2017) (categorical approach and definition of CIMT)
Hyder v. Keisler, 506 F.3d 388 (5th Cir. 2007) (holding related § 408 provision is a CIMT)
Fuentes‑Cruz v. Gonzales, 489 F.3d 724 (5th Cir. 2007) (deception as element = CIMT)
Omagah v. Ashcroft, 288 F.3d 254 (5th Cir. 2002) (definition of moral turpitude)
Rodriguez‑Castro v. Gonzales, 427 F.3d 316 (5th Cir. 2005) (BIA role in interpreting CIMT)
Beltran‑Tirado v. INS, 213 F.3d 1179 (9th Cir. 2000) (contrary Ninth Circuit view that § 408 misuse is not necessarily a CIMT)
Guardado‑Garcia v. Holder, 615 F.3d 900 (8th Cir. 2010) (agreeing § 408 misuse is a CIMT)
Arias v. Lynch, 834 F.3d 823 (7th Cir. 2016) (expressing doubt that every § 408 violation is a CIMT)
Mercado v. Lynch, 823 F.3d 276 (5th Cir. 2016) (deference to BIA on moral turpitude interpretation)