Got Immigration? The World’s Best Damn Blog About U.S. Immigration

I saw this in an opinion published today by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals – Ocegueda Nunez v. Holder – regarding the age-old question: what exactly is “a crime involving moral turpitude?”

“Once again we face the question of what is moral turpitude: a nebulous question that we are required to answer on the basis of judicially established categories of criminal conduct.  Although that may not be a satisfactory basis for answering such a question, it is the role to which we are limited by precedent as a court of law. Furthermore, any answer based on other considerations would in all probability be unacceptable to one or another segment of society and could well divide residents of red states from residents of blue, the old from the young, neighbor from neighbor, and even males from females. There is simply no overall agreement on many issues of morality in contemporary society.”

Nice.  The 9th Circuit has no clue what moral turpitude is.  Judge Reinhardt goes on to write that “[w]e have previously discussed at some length the inherent ambiguity of the phrase “moral turpitude” and the consistent failure of either the BIA or our own court to establish any coherent criteria for determining which crimes fall within that classification and which crimes do not.  See, e.g., Marmolejo-Campos, 558 F.3d at 909 (” ‘[M]oral turpitude’ is perhaps the quintessential example of an ambiguous phrase.”); id. at 921(Berzon, J., dissenting) (“[T]he BIA’s precedential case law regarding the meaning of the phrase ‘crime involving moral turpitude’ . . . is a mess of conflicting authority.”)…”

Wow – absolutely NO ONE knows how to define moral turpitude.  The Court concludes that the only real way to decide whether a crime involves moral turpitude is to compare it to crimes that have already been found to involve turpitudinous conduct – and yes, that really is a word.  With this as its test, the Court held that California Penal Code § 314, which criminalizes indecent exposure, is not categorically a crime involving moral turpitude because some of the conduct it punishes might lie outside the generic definition of moral turpitude.

Aside from providing some nice quotations, this case nicely illustrates just how big a headache statutory language can cause the legal system.  This ambiguity could have been intentional – an example of Congress having something in mind, but not knowing exactly how to define it, and dumping the problem on the courts instead – but it could just as likely have been poor legislating on the part of whoever came up with “moral turpitude” as the definition for “bad crimes” in immigration law.  I would have Congress scrap moral turpitude as a legal standard altogether, but is there even another way to define the class of crimes Congress intended to identify in this situation?  Moral turpitude might unfortunately be as good as it gets.  I guess that not every concept in law corresponds with a clear, unambiguous definition – and that we have to resign ourselves sometimes to sorting out those “messes of conflicting authority” Judge Reinhardt was talking about.

I’ve been dealing with abandonment issues a lot lately.  No, I’m not referring to having been left on a stranger’s doorstep when I was 5, rather to abandoning one’s permanent residence, which can happen when a Lawful Permanent Resident (“LPR”) spends too much time outside the United States.  The law requires that LPRs intend to be domiciled in the United States.  After all, a green card is a permanent visa to remain in the United States indefinitely – and not a free pass into the country whenever someone that lives abroad feels like using it.  LPRs that spend more than a year abroad are usually found to have abandoned their permanent residence.  Conversely, LPRs that live abroad but re-enter the U.S. every few months could also be found to have abandoned their residence, since these trips back could be too infrequent or of too transitory a nature.  One possible solution to this problem: Permanent Residents that are planning to remain abroad for extended periods of time can apply for a re-entry permit, which allows them to remain outside the country for up to two years for a valid reason.  LPRs that have re-entry permits would still need to maintain sufficient ties to the United States while they’re abroad, though, or Immigration can still find abandonment depsite possession of a valid permit.

LPRs – you’ve worked way too hard, and gone through way too much crap, to get your green card – why risk losing it afterwards?  The best insurance against abandonment is to naturalize as soon as possible.  If you do not want to naturalize for whatever reason – such as possibly losing your former nationality – then plan to spend as much time as possible inside the United States.  And if you ever need to travel extensively, speak with a qualified attorney about the best strategy for maintaining your residence despite the need to travel.  Abandonment is usually avoidable – don’t be one of the unfortunate few that has to give up their right to be in this country simply because of some unusually long trips abroad.

The CDC just announced that it intends to remove Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) from its list of “communicable diseases of public health significance.” This isn’t official yet – the period for comments on this new proposal ends on August 17, 2009 – but if this becomes law, HIV-positive foreign nationals would no longer need a waiver in order to enter the United States. In practical terms, this means much less hassle for thousands of people that would normally need an approved waiver in order to enter or acquire legal status in the U.S. The CDC’s announcement is also a striking example of the strides that science has made in the treatment of HIV, and of an accompanying societal change of attitude. With better treatment available (at least in the U.S.) and a better-informed public, it was only a matter of time until the goverment’s health watchdog/bureaucracy caught up. Way to go CDC!