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

statute
statute

Related Cases

Mujica v. Airscan, Inc.
View Case »
Mantena v. Johnson
View Case »
Rokiyi Tambara v. Weedin
View Case »
San Francisco, City and County of, v. Trump
View Case »
Okeke v. Gonzales
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Latu v. Mukasey

Facts

Latu was admitted into the United States in 1999. In 2003, he was convicted of violating Hawaii Revised Statute 291C-12.5, which requires a driver involved in an accident resulting in substantial injury to remain at the scene of the accident, provide certain information, and render assistance as required by Hawaii Revised Statute 291C-14. The Department of Homeland Security subsequently served Latu with a Notice to Appear, charging him with removability for having committed a CIMT within five years of his admission into the United States.

Latu was admitted into the United States in 1999. In 2003, he was convicted of violating Hawaii Revised Statute 291C-12.5, which requires a driver involved in an accident resulting in substantial injury to remain at the scene of the accident, provide certain information, and render assistance as required by Hawaii Revised Statute 291C-14. The Department of Homeland Security subsequently served Latu with a Notice to Appear, charging him with removability for having committed a CIMT within five years of his admission into the United States.

Issue

Whether Latu's conviction under Hawaii Revised Statute 291C-12.5 constitutes a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT) for the purposes of removal under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(i).

Whether Latu's conviction under Hawaii Revised Statute 291C-12.5 constitutes a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT) for the purposes of removal under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(i).

Rule

In determining whether a conviction is a CIMT for removability purposes, the court applies the categorical and modified categorical approaches set forth in Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990). A crime involves moral turpitude if the generic elements of the crime show that it involves conduct that is base, vile, or depraved and violates accepted moral standards.

In determining whether a conviction is a CIMT for removability purposes, the court applies the categorical and modified categorical approaches set forth in Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990). A crime involves moral turpitude if the generic elements of the crime show that it involves conduct that is base, vile, or depraved and violates accepted moral standards.

Analysis

The court applied the categorical approach to conclude that Latu's conviction under 291C-12.5 was not a CIMT. The statute criminalized the failure to provide an address or vehicle registration number following an accident, which the court determined was not base, vile, or depraved. The court also rejected the argument that the offense involved fraud, noting that intent to defraud was not explicit or implicit in the statutory definition of the offense.

The court applied the categorical approach to conclude that Latu's conviction under 291C-12.5 was not a CIMT. The statute criminalized the failure to provide an address or vehicle registration number following an accident, which the court determined was not base, vile, or depraved. The court also rejected the argument that the offense involved fraud, noting that intent to defraud was not explicit or implicit in the statutory definition of the offense.

Conclusion

The court granted Latu's petition, holding that his conviction under Hawaii Revised Statute 291C-12.5 does not constitute a CIMT.

The court granted Latu's petition, holding that his conviction under Hawaii Revised Statute 291C-12.5 does not constitute a CIMT.

Who won?

Latu prevailed in the case because the court found that his conviction did not meet the criteria for a crime involving moral turpitude as defined under federal law.

Latu prevailed in the case because the court found that his conviction did not meet the criteria for a crime involving moral turpitude as defined under federal law.

You must be