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

statuteprecedentappealwillasylumsustainedmens reaadmissibility
statuteprecedentappealwillasylumsustainedmens reaadmissibility

Related Cases

Lennon v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Avilez-Granados v. Gonzales
View Case »
Gonzalez v. USCIS
View Case »
Murillo-Salmeron v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Saba v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Latter-Singh v. Holder

Facts

Petitioner Lakhwinder Latter-Singh, a native and citizen of India, entered the United States illegally in January 1993 and received asylum later that year. He was convicted for making threats with intent to terrorize under California Penal Code 422. In March 2004, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against him, alleging that his conviction rendered him removable as an alien convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude. The immigration judge denied his applications for relief and the BIA affirmed this decision.

Petitioner Lakhwinder Latter-Singh, a native and citizen of India, entered the United States illegally in January 1993 and received asylum later that year. He was convicted for making threats with intent to terrorize under California Penal Code 422. In March 2004, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against him, alleging that his conviction rendered him removable as an alien convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude. The immigration judge denied his applications for relief and the BIA affirmed this decision.

Issue

Whether Latter-Singh's conviction under California Penal Code 422 constitutes a crime involving moral turpitude, rendering him removable under 8 U.S.C.S. 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I).

Whether Latter-Singh's conviction under California Penal Code 422 constitutes a crime involving moral turpitude, rendering him removable under 8 U.S.C.S. 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I).

Rule

A crime involving moral turpitude is generally defined as one that is vile, base, or depraved and violates accepted moral standards. The BIA's determination that a crime is a CIMT is entitled to deference, particularly if it relies on a precedential determination.

A crime involving moral turpitude is generally defined as one that is vile, base, or depraved and violates accepted moral standards. The BIA's determination that a crime is a CIMT is entitled to deference, particularly if it relies on a precedential determination.

Analysis

The court analyzed the elements of California Penal Code 422, which requires a willful threat to commit a crime resulting in death or great bodily injury, with the specific intent that the statement be taken as a threat. The court concluded that the nature of the threats made under this statute, which instill sustained fear in the victim, categorically constitutes a crime involving moral turpitude. The BIA's conclusion was supported by the requirement of mens rea and the serious nature of the threats.

The court analyzed the elements of California Penal Code 422, which requires a willful threat to commit a crime resulting in death or great bodily injury, with the specific intent that the statement be taken as a threat. The court concluded that the nature of the threats made under this statute, which instill sustained fear in the victim, categorically constitutes a crime involving moral turpitude. The BIA's conclusion was supported by the requirement of mens rea and the serious nature of the threats.

Conclusion

The court denied the petition regarding the CIMT issue and dismissed the appeal concerning the waiver of admissibility, affirming the BIA's decision.

The court denied the petition regarding the CIMT issue and dismissed the appeal concerning the waiver of admissibility, affirming the BIA's decision.

Who won?

The Board of Immigration Appeals prevailed because the court upheld its determination that Latter-Singh's conviction constituted a crime involving moral turpitude, thus supporting his removal.

The Board of Immigration Appeals prevailed because the court upheld its determination that Latter-Singh's conviction constituted a crime involving moral turpitude, thus supporting his removal.

You must be