25 I. & N. Dec. 551
BIA2011Background
- Ruiz-Lopez, a Mexican national, entered the U.S. without admission or parole and was convicted in Washington in 1997 for attempting to elude a pursuing police vehicle under Wash. Rev. Code 46.61.024; he received 40 days’ confinement.
- DHS charged him as inadmissible for a crime involving moral turpitude and presence in the U.S. without admission or parole.
- IJ found him removable and ineligible for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b) because of the CIMT conviction.
- Board affirmed the dismissal of the appeal, holding respondent removable and ineligible for relief.
- The central issue is whether the Washington offense constitutes a crime involving moral turpitude, and whether the petty offense exception to CIMT applies.
- The analysis relies on a two-step Silva-Trevino framework (categorical and, if needed, modified categorical) for moral turpitude, and on Washington case law interpreting 46.61.024 as involving reckless disregard that endangers others.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 46.61.024 is a CIMT | Ruiz-Lopez argues no CIMT due to lack of evil intent | DHS contends the act involves moral turpitude | Yes, the crime involves moral turpitude |
| Mens rea sufficiency for turpitude | Recklessness alone with no bodily harm suffices | Moral turpitude requires evil intent or aggravating harm | Reckless disregard coupled with endangerment constitutes turpitude |
| Role of ‘wanton or willful disregard’ | Disregard for property suffices | Must show greater culpability | Crime involves moral turpitude given conduct endangers others |
| Petty offense exception | Maximum penalty is 5 years; should qualify | Maximum penalty is 5 years; ineligible due to 5-year cap | Not a petty offense; ineligible for exception |
| Relief from removal (cancellation eligibility) | Conceivably eligible if CIMT exception applies | Ineligible due to CIMT finding | Ineligible for cancellation; removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i) |
Key Cases Cited
- Mei v. Ashcroft, 393 F.3d 737 (7th Cir. 2004) (reckless disregard can support moral turpitude)
- People v. Dewey, 49 Cal. Rptr. 2d 537 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996) (reckless disregard endangering lives may involve turpitude)
- State v. Sherman, 653 P.2d 612 (Wash. 1982) (statutory crime of flight contains culpable mental elements)
- State v. Mather, 626 P.2d 44 (Wash. Ct. App. 1981) (resisting arrest with wanton disregard punishes unreasonable conduct)
- Matter of Silva-Trevino, 24 I&N Dec. 687 (A.G. 2008) (two-stage framework for moral turpitude analysis)
- Matter of Solon, 24 I&N Dec. 239 (BIA 2007) (conceptual framework for moral turpitude assessment)
- Matter of Serna, 20 I&N Dec. 579 (BIA 1992) (moral turpitude where conduct is inherently wrong)
- Mei v. Ashcroft (as cited), 393 F.3d 737 (7th Cir. 2004) (see above)