Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
1
P
"
be totally irrelevant to the issue of removability. Moreover, in its decision on July 26, 2011, the
Court explicitly fund that the respondent's conviction documents and testimony were
insufcient to establish that a burglary of a motor vehicle conviction under CPC 459 amounted
to a CIMT. See also Matter of M-, 2 I&N Dec. 721 (BIA 1946) (holding that a breaing and
entering ofense may be deemed to involve moral turpitude only if accompanied by the intent to
commit a morally turitudinous act afer entr). The Court stated:
The Court fnds that the OHS has not proven that the respondent's June 10, 2010
burglary conviction involves moral turpitude, as no judicialy noticeable
documents were presented that establish what specifc crime the respondent was
convicted of intending to commit once he illegally entered the motor vehicle.
Under CPC 459, a defendant can be convicted of this crime fr breaking into the
motor vehicle with intent commit any flony (not necessarily larceny despite the
wording of the criminal complaint), some of which do not involve moral
turpitude. Although the respondent's testimony during the relief phase of his
removal hearing establishes that he intended to commit thef once he illegally
entered the vehicle (which is a CIMT), the respondent, through counsel, denied
this conviction ad the charges of removability and the DHS provided no
judicially noticeable documents that prove that his actual criminal conviction
involved intent to commit thef (again, despite the language of the criminal
complaint, since the respondent could have been convicted of illegal entry into the
motor vehicle with intent to commit any flony and not necessarily larceny).
See Decision of the Immigration Judge, pp. 15-16. As was previously the case, the conviction
record fr the respondent's 2010 conviction does not contain evidence of what specifc intended
flony the burglary involved. Likewise, the conviction record fr the respondent's 2009
conviction does not contain evidence of what specifc intended felony the burglary involved.
Thus, in accordance with its prior ruling and fr the reasons contained in the Respondent's
Motion to Terminate Removal Proceedings (Exhibit R4), the Cour does not sustain the charge
of removability under section 23 7(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act.
The fllowing order shall be entered:
IT IS ORDERED THAT the Respondent's Motion to Terminate
Removal Proceedings be GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the removal proceedings in this
case be and are hereby TERINATED without prejudice.
!
M
U.S. Immigration Judge
3
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t
&
R
e
f
u
g
e
e
A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e
C
e
n
t
e
r
|
w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t