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

jurisdictionappealvisadeportationnaturalization
jurisdictionvisadeportation

Related Cases

Valerio-Ochoa v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Galvez v. Lewis
View Case »
Hassan v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Kithongo v. Garland
View Case »
Kwai Fun Wong; U.S. v.
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Smalley v. Ashcroft

Facts

Smalley, a citizen of the United Kingdom, legally entered the United States in 1982 with permission to remain for one year. He overstayed his visa and was later convicted of 'Interstate Travel in Aid of Racketeering Enterprise' for facilitating money laundering. The Immigration and Naturalization Service charged him with being a deportable alien for overstaying his visa and for committing a crime of moral turpitude. The Board of Immigration Appeals confirmed his deportability based on these grounds.

Smalley, a citizen of the United Kingdom, legally entered the United States in 1982 with permission to remain for one year. He overstayed his visa and was later convicted of 'Interstate Travel in Aid of Racketeering Enterprise' for facilitating money laundering.

Issue

Whether the appellate court has jurisdiction to review the BIA's deportation order given that the alien was convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude.

Whether the appellate court has jurisdiction to review the BIA's deportation order given that the alien was convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude.

Rule

The court applies a two-part standard of review to the BIA's conclusion that an alien has committed a crime involving moral turpitude, according substantial deference to the BIA's interpretation of the INA and reviewing de novo whether the elements of a crime fit the BIA's definition of moral turpitude.

The court applies a two-part standard of review to the BIA's conclusion that an alien has committed a crime involving moral turpitude, according substantial deference to the BIA's interpretation of the INA and reviewing de novo whether the elements of a crime fit the BIA's definition of moral turpitude.

Analysis

The court determined that Smalley's conviction for money laundering constituted a crime involving moral turpitude because it involved the intent to conceal the proceeds of illegal drug activity. The court emphasized that the nature of the crime itself, rather than the circumstances surrounding it, is what qualifies it as a CIMT. Therefore, the BIA's finding that Smalley's conviction was a CIMT was upheld, leading to the conclusion that the court lacked jurisdiction to review the deportation order.

The court determined that Smalley's conviction for money laundering constituted a crime involving moral turpitude because it involved the intent to conceal the proceeds of illegal drug activity.

Conclusion

The appellate court dismissed Smalley's petition for review, affirming the BIA's order of deportation based on the finding that he had committed a crime involving moral turpitude.

The appellate court dismissed Smalley's petition for review, affirming the BIA's order of deportation based on the finding that he had committed a crime involving moral turpitude.

Who won?

The government prevailed in the case because the court upheld the BIA's determination that Smalley's conviction constituted a crime involving moral turpitude, thus depriving the court of jurisdiction to review the deportation order.

The government prevailed in the case because the court upheld the BIA's determination that Smalley's conviction constituted a crime involving moral turpitude, thus depriving the court of jurisdiction to review the deportation order.

You must be