Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

statuteappealmotion
appealmotion

Related Cases

Palmer v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Gando-Coello v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Williams v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Waggoner v. Gonzales
View Case »
Romero-Vilca; U.S. v.
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Dolic v. Barr

Facts

Amela Dolic, a native and citizen of Bosnia-Herzegovina, was admitted to the United States in 2006 and became a lawful permanent resident in 2009. In March 2017, she was convicted in a Missouri state court of three counts of receiving stolen property and four counts of passing a bad check. Following these convictions, the Department of Homeland Security charged her with removability under the Immigration and Nationality Act, leading her to file a motion to terminate the removal proceedings.

Dolic, a native and citizen of Bosnia-Herzegovina, was admitted to the United States in 2006 as a conditional resident, and in 2009 her status changed to lawful permanent resident. In March of 2017, a Missouri state court convicted Dolic of three counts of receiving stolen property and four counts of passing a bad check.

Issue

Whether Dolic's convictions for passing a bad check under Mo. Rev. Stat. 570.120 qualify as crimes involving moral turpitude.

Whether a conviction qualifies as a crime involving moral turpitude ('CIMT') is a legal question, subject to de novo review.

Rule

A conviction qualifies as a crime involving moral turpitude if it is inherently base, vile, or depraved, and contrary to accepted rules of morality. The Board of Immigration Appeals' interpretation of ambiguous statutory language in the Immigration and Nationality Act is afforded substantial deference.

In the absence of a statutory definition, the BIA has defined a CIMT as one 'which is inherently base, vile, or depraved, and contrary to the accepted rules of morality and the duties owed between persons or to society in general.'

Analysis

The court applied the modified categorical approach to determine that Dolic's convictions fell under a specific subsection of the divisible statute, which included 'purpose to defraud' as an element. The court concluded that the nature of the crime, as defined by the statute and supported by Missouri state court decisions, confirmed that Dolic's convictions were indeed crimes involving moral turpitude.

We do not look to Dolic's particular conduct to determine if it involved moral turpitude because the INA asks whether the crime of conviction fits a certain category ('crimes involving moral turpitude'), not whether an alien's acts fit that category.

Conclusion

The court denied Dolic's petition for review, affirming that her convictions for passing a bad check qualified as crimes involving moral turpitude.

We deny Dolic's petition.

Who won?

The Board of Immigration Appeals prevailed in the case, as the court upheld their decision that Dolic's convictions constituted crimes involving moral turpitude.

The Board of Immigration Appeals properly denied the alien's motion to terminate removal proceedings because her convictions for passing a bad check under Mo. Rev. Stat. 570.120 qualified as crimes involving moral turpitude.

You must be