75 F.4th 1337
11th Cir.2023Background
- Lisette Lopez became a U.S. citizen in 2007 after filing N-400 forms certifying no unarrested crimes; she later pleaded guilty in 2012 to conspiracy to commit money laundering (18 U.S.C. § 1956(h)) based on a scheme involving millions in false Medicare claims and laundering of proceeds.
- Her factual proffer admitted awareness of false Medicare claims (2005–2008) and use of proceeds to buy property (e.g., a Mercedes); she was sentenced in 2012 to prison and acknowledged denaturalization risk in her plea agreement.
- The government filed to revoke her naturalization in 2021, alleging she lacked "good moral character" during the statutory five-year period and willfully concealed crimes on her naturalization forms.
- The district court granted the government judgment on the pleadings, concluding Lopez’s conspiracy conviction overlapped the statutory period and involved a crime of moral turpitude.
- On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit held §1956(h) (conspiracy) is divisible and the modified categorical approach applies, but concluded the underlying offenses charged (§1957 and §1956(a)(1)(B)) do not categorically constitute crimes involving moral turpitude; the court reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the categorical approach applies to a conspiracy conviction and whether §1956(h) is divisible | Government: categorical approach applies; conspiracy conviction can be a crime of moral turpitude if the object offense is | Lopez: must examine elements of offense; if statute allows non-turpitudinous means, it isn't categorical | Court: §1956(h) is divisible; apply modified categorical approach to identify object offense elements |
| Whether §1956(a)(1)(B)(i) and (ii) are separate elements (divisible) or alternative means | Government: the charged clause(s) should be read to support moral-turpitude finding | Lopez: the clauses are alternative means and may cover non-turpitudinous conduct | Court: (B)(i) and (B)(ii) are alternative means of a single concealment offense (indivisible from each other) |
| Whether §1957 (transactions in criminally derived property) categorically involves moral turpitude | Government: §1957 denotes serious, blameworthy conduct that can reflect moral turpitude | Lopez: §1957 can encompass non-fraudulent conduct lacking inherent baseness | Court: §1957 does not categorically involve moral turpitude |
| Whether §1956(a)(1)(B)(ii) (structuring to avoid reporting) categorically involves moral turpitude | Government: structuring is deceitful and reflects moral baseness | Lopez: structuring/reporting violations can be non-fraudulent and only deprive government of information | Court: (B)(ii) does not categorically involve moral turpitude; least culpable means do not satisfy "baseness, vileness, or depravity" |
Key Cases Cited
- Fedorenko v. United States, 449 U.S. 490 (1981) (denaturalization permitted where citizenship procured illegally or by willful misrepresentation)
- Mathis v. United States, 579 U.S. 500 (2016) (distinguishing elements from means; framework for categorical/modified categorical approach)
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005) (limited documents may be consulted to identify the crime of conviction)
- George v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 953 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir. 2020) (applying categorical approach to determine whether prior conviction is a crime involving moral turpitude)
- Daye v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 38 F.4th 1355 (11th Cir. 2022) (defining moral turpitude as conduct involving "baseness, vileness, or depravity")
- Zarate v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 26 F.4th 1196 (11th Cir. 2022) (fraud offenses typically involve moral turpitude)
- Holmes v. United States, 44 F.3d 1150 (2d Cir. 1995) (interpreting §§1956(a)(1)(B)(i) and (B)(ii) as alternative means of same offense)
- Calderon v. United States, 169 F.3d 718 (11th Cir. 1999) (earlier statement suggesting subsections of §1956(a)(1) are separate offenses—later treated as dicta)
- Seher v. United States, 562 F.3d 1344 (11th Cir. 2009) (rejecting binding effect of Calderon dicta and discussing §1956 subdivisions)
- United States v. Gillis, 938 F.3d 1181 (11th Cir. 2019) (when sources are unclear on divisibility, resolve in favor of indivisibility)
- United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321 (1998) (characterizing reporting violations as causing minimal harm; relevant to moral significance of reporting offenses)
- Goldeshtein v. Immigr. & Naturaliz. Serv., 8 F.3d 645 (9th Cir. 1993) (holding a structuring/reporting statute violation is not a crime of moral turpitude)
- Smalley v. Ashcroft, 354 F.3d 332 (5th Cir. 2003) (distinguishing concealment/disguise offenses from mere reporting violations for moral-turpitude purposes)