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

Tomczyk v. Garland
View Case »
Hamdan v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Ellul v. Congregation of Christian Bros.
View Case »
Lopez v. Henley
View Case »
Barrientos v. CoreCivic, Inc.
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Totimeh v. AG

Facts

Totimeh was inspected and admitted to the United States at New York City as a B-1 visitor in July 1980. He was granted an adjustment of status to that of a lawful permanent resident in May 1983. In 1988, he pled guilty to criminal sexual conduct in the fourth degree, and in 1995, he pled guilty to failing to comply with Minnesota's predatory offender registration statute. The Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against him based on these convictions.

Totimeh was inspected and admitted to the United States at New York City as a B-1 visitor in July 1980. He was granted an adjustment of status to that of a lawful permanent resident in May 1983. In 1988, he pled guilty to criminal sexual conduct in the fourth degree, and in 1995, he pled guilty to failing to comply with Minnesota's predatory offender registration statute. The Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against him based on these convictions.

Issue

Whether Totimeh's conviction under Minnesota's predatory offender registration statute was a crime involving moral turpitude for purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

Whether Totimeh's conviction under Minnesota's predatory offender registration statute was a crime involving moral turpitude for purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

Rule

A conviction under a state law is a crime of moral turpitude if it involves conduct that is inherently base, vile, or depraved, contrary to accepted rules of morality.

A conviction under a state law is a crime of moral turpitude if it involves conduct that is inherently base, vile, or depraved, contrary to accepted rules of morality.

Analysis

The court applied a categorical approach to determine whether Totimeh's conviction under the Minnesota registration statute constituted a crime involving moral turpitude. It concluded that the statute could be violated without intent and did not involve conduct that was inherently vile or intentionally malicious. Therefore, Totimeh's conviction did not meet the criteria for moral turpitude.

The court applied a categorical approach to determine whether Totimeh's conviction under the Minnesota registration statute constituted a crime involving moral turpitude. It concluded that the statute could be violated without intent and did not involve conduct that was inherently vile or intentionally malicious. Therefore, Totimeh's conviction did not meet the criteria for moral turpitude.

Conclusion

The court reversed the BIA's decision regarding Totimeh's conviction and vacated the order of removal, remanding the case with instructions to reopen it and enter an order that he was not removable.

The court reversed the BIA's decision regarding Totimeh's conviction and vacated the order of removal, remanding the case with instructions to reopen it and enter an order that he was not removable.

Who won?

Totimeh prevailed in the case because the court found that his conviction under the Minnesota predatory offender registration statute did not constitute a crime involving moral turpitude.

Totimeh prevailed in the case because the court found that his conviction under the Minnesota predatory offender registration statute did not constitute a crime involving moral turpitude.

You must be