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

statuteappealdeportation
statuteappeal

Related Cases

Paktorovics v. Murff
View Case »
Allessio v. Day
View Case »
Obleshchenko v. Ashcroft
View Case »
Hincapie-Zapata v. United States AG
View Case »
Argueta v. Barr
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Gonzalez-Alvarado; U.S. v.

Facts

Petitioner had lawfully entered the United States as a permanent resident alien married to a citizen of the United States. Shortly after petitioner arrived, petitioner was convicted for incest under Wash. Rev. Code 9A.64.020. The Immigration and Nationalization Service initiated deportation proceedings against petitioner under 8 U.S.C.S. 1251(a)(4), which required deportation of an alien who was convicted of a crime that involved moral turpitude. Petitioner alleged that incest was not a crime of moral turpitude.

Petitioner had lawfully entered the United States as a permanent resident alien married to a citizen of the United States. Shortly after petitioner arrived, petitioner was convicted for incest under Wash. Rev. Code 9A.64.020.

Issue

Whether the petitioner's conviction for incest constituted a crime involving moral turpitude under 8 U.S.C.S. 1251(a)(4).

Whether the petitioner's conviction for incest constituted a crime involving moral turpitude under 8 U.S.C.S. 1251(a)(4).

Rule

A crime involves moral turpitude if it is an act of baseness or depravity contrary to accepted moral standards.

A crime involves moral turpitude if it is an act of baseness or depravity contrary to accepted moral standards.

Analysis

The court applied the rule by examining the nature of the crime as defined by the relevant statute, disregarding the specific circumstances of the case. It concluded that incest, as defined under Washington law, is inherently an act of baseness or depravity that violates accepted moral standards, thus qualifying as a crime involving moral turpitude.

The court applied the rule by examining the nature of the crime as defined by the relevant statute, disregarding the specific circumstances of the case.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision, holding that the petitioner's conviction for incest was a crime that involved moral turpitude.

The court affirmed the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision, holding that the petitioner's conviction for incest was a crime that involved moral turpitude.

Who won?

The Immigration and Nationalization Service prevailed because the court found that the petitioner's conviction for incest constituted a crime involving moral turpitude.

The Immigration and Nationalization Service prevailed because the court found that the petitioner's conviction for incest constituted a crime involving moral turpitude.

You must be