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

willvisamens reaactus reus
immigration lawvisa

Related Cases

Tittjung v. Reno
View Case »
Raffington v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Tunis v. Gonzales
View Case »
Filazapovich v. Department of State
View Case »
Mikhailevitch v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Safaryan v. Barr

Facts

Eduard Safaryan, a native of Armenia, overstayed his tourist visa in the U.S. and married a lawful permanent resident. He was served a notice of removal in 2000 and later sought adjustment of status after his wife became a U.S. citizen. However, in 2005, he was involved in a road rage incident leading to his conviction for assault with a deadly weapon under California Penal Code 245(a)(1). The BIA later determined that this conviction constituted a crime involving moral turpitude, making him inadmissible for adjustment of status.

On July 14, 1999, Eduard Safaryan, a native and citizen of Armenia, arrived in Los Angeles on a tourist visa authorizing him to remain in the United States until January 13, 2000. Safaryan overstayed his visa, however, and in December 2000, he married a lawful permanent resident, to whom he is still married.

Issue

Is a violation of California Penal Code 245(a)(1) categorically a crime involving moral turpitude for immigration purposes?

This case requires us to decide whether California Penal Code 245(a)(1), which proscribes certain aggravated forms of assault, is categorically a 'crime involving moral turpitude' for purposes of the immigration laws.

Rule

A crime involving moral turpitude is generally defined as a crime that encompasses a reprehensible act with some form of scienter, which includes both the nature of the underlying conduct (actus reus) and the state of mind (mens rea) with which it is performed.

We have described the statutory phrase 'moral turpitude' as 'perhaps the quintessential example of an ambiguous phrase.'

Analysis

The court applied the BIA's reasoning that California Penal Code 245(a)(1) requires a willful commission of an inherently dangerous act with actual knowledge that it would likely result in harm, thus satisfying the mens rea requirement for moral turpitude. The use of a deadly weapon was also identified as an aggravating factor that elevated the crime's reprehensibility, leading the court to conclude that the BIA's determination was justified.

Consequently, the BIA concluded that Safaryan's conviction rendered him inadmissible, and ineligible for adjustment of status, absent a waiver.

Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the BIA's decision, concluding that Safaryan's conviction under California Penal Code 245(a)(1) constituted a crime involving moral turpitude, and therefore, his petition for review was denied.

We hold that it was.

Who won?

The government prevailed in this case, as the court upheld the BIA's determination that Safaryan's conviction constituted a crime involving moral turpitude, which rendered him inadmissible for adjustment of status.

The BIA subsequently held in a published decision that 245(a)(1) is categorically a crime involving moral turpitude.

You must be