INA §212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) can make a noncitizen inadmissible based on a qualifying conviction or a legally sufficient admission involving a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT). The statute also covers an attempt or conspiracy to commit a CIMT. The youthful offender and petty offense exceptions in INA §212(a)(2)(A)(ii) may apply in qualifying cases. Whether an offense is a CIMT depends on the statute and its elements, the legally permitted record, and the applicable exception or waiver.
What is a crime involving moral turpitude?
The Immigration and Nationality Act does not provide a complete list of every CIMT. The Department of State’s Foreign Affairs Manual identifies common categories, including offenses involving fraud, larceny, or an intent to harm persons or things. Its examples are illustrative, not exhaustive. The offense name alone does not decide the issue, and a crime that sounds serious is not automatically a CIMT.
In many cases, the analysis starts with the statutory elements of the offense of conviction, not simply the conduct described in a police report. If the statute contains alternative elements and is divisible, the legally permitted record of conviction may be considered under the applicable categorical analysis. A legally sufficient admission is also a specific immigration law concept; an informal statement or an admission to some conduct does not automatically establish every element of a CIMT.
Examples discussed in the Foreign Affairs Manual include certain offenses involving fraud, theft with an intent to permanently deprive, forgery, bribery, perjury, and some assaults. The Manual also identifies offenses that generally do not involve moral turpitude when they lack fraud or an evil intent, such as some regulatory violations, simple assault, or reckless driving. The actual statutory elements and controlling legal authority govern the result. See 9 FAM 302.3-2.
Statutory exceptions: youthful offender and petty offense
INA §212(a)(2)(A)(ii) contains two exceptions to the CIMT ground:
- Youthful offender exception. The person must have committed only one crime, the crime must have been committed before the person turned 18, and the crime and release from any confinement imposed for it must have occurred more than five years before the relevant visa or admission application.
- Petty offense exception. The person must have committed only one CIMT, the maximum possible penalty for the offense must not exceed one year of imprisonment, and, if there was a conviction, the sentence imposed must not exceed six months.
These are statutory tests. The number of offenses, offense date, maximum possible sentence, actual sentence, release date, and applicable law must be verified from the record. See INA §212(a)(2)(A)(ii).
How to challenge a CIMT finding
The analysis should identify the exact statute and subsection, the version in effect at the time of the offense, the charging document, plea or disposition records, judgment, and sentence. Counsel can then assess whether the statutory elements categorically involve moral turpitude, whether the statute is divisible, whether the record may be consulted, whether a statutory exception applies, and whether any admission is legally sufficient.
Review options depend on the decision maker and procedural posture. A consular visa refusal, a CBP decision, a USCIS adjudication, and a removal proceeding may have different procedures and deadlines. A generic list of CIMTs cannot replace an offense specific legal analysis.
Immigrant waiver under INA §212(h)
INA §212(h) permits a discretionary waiver of certain criminal grounds, including qualifying CIMT inadmissibility, for applicants who meet the statute. Depending on the case, the statutory routes may include showing that the relevant activities occurred more than 15 years before the visa, admission, or adjustment application and that the applicant has been rehabilitated and would not pose a threat to national welfare, safety, or security; establishing extreme hardship to a qualifying US citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse, parent, son, or daughter; or qualifying under the VAWA provisions.
INA §212(h) has important limits. The statute bars a waiver for murder or criminal acts involving torture, including attempts or conspiracies to commit those offenses. It also imposes restrictions on certain people previously admitted as lawful permanent residents, including rules concerning aggravated felony convictions and continuous residence before removal proceedings. A qualifying relative or an old conviction alone does not establish eligibility. Review the current statutory text and the applicant’s complete immigration history.
Nonimmigrant waiver under INA §212(d)(3)(A)
Some people seeking temporary admission may request a discretionary waiver under INA §212(d)(3)(A). This route is separate from an immigrant waiver under INA §212(h), and statutory exclusions apply. Eligibility and the discretionary decision depend on the ground of inadmissibility, the requested nonimmigrant classification, the purpose and duration of the visit, and the relevant agency process.
The firm has successfully assisted clients facing inadmissibility findings. A CIMT case turns on the particular offense, the statute and record, any applicable exception, and whether a waiver is available. A generalized crime list or an optimistic waiver statement cannot substitute for that analysis.
Please contact Messersmith Law Firm at 305-515-0613 or info@messersmithlaw.com to discuss a CIMT inadmissibility issue.