INA §212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I)
When CBP raises a crime involving moral turpitude during inspection, the traveler should first determine exactly what conviction CBP relied on, what inadmissibility ground was recorded, and whether CBP considered any applicable exception. The underlying criminal statute still matters, but this page focuses on understanding the border encounter and preparing for a later application for admission.
Scope of this page: DeportedAtBorder.com addresses crimes involving moral turpitude here from the perspective of a traveler questioned or refused by CBP during U.S. entry inspection. For the broader substantive law governing what qualifies as a CIMT, the categorical analysis, statutory exceptions and waiver rules, see the comprehensive CIMT guide on INA212.com.
The statute generally makes inadmissible a person convicted of, or who makes a legally sufficient admission concerning, a crime involving moral turpitude or an attempt or conspiracy to commit such a crime.
The INA does not provide a simple list of every offense that is a CIMT. Courts and immigration authorities analyze the elements of the particular criminal statute.
The name of the offense is not enough. Two state statutes with similar labels can have different immigration consequences because their required elements differ.
CIMT analysis is highly offense specific. Immigration precedent has addressed offenses involving fraud, theft, intentional violence, obstruction, sexual misconduct and many other categories, but the result depends on the elements and controlling law.
For example, the BIA has held in Matter of Rivens that accessory after the fact is a CIMT only when the underlying offense itself involves moral turpitude.
Immigration adjudicators generally begin with the statutory elements of the offense rather than simply reviewing the alleged conduct described in a police report.
Where the criminal statute is divisible, the legally permissible record of conviction may become important in identifying the specific statutory alternative involved.
INA §212(a)(2)(A)(ii) contains important exceptions. A qualifying juvenile offense may fall outside the CIMT inadmissibility provision, and a person with one qualifying offense may satisfy the petty-offense exception.
See Petty-Offense Exception for a Crime Involving Moral Turpitude.
The answer depends on the elements of the particular theft statute and controlling immigration law. The offense label alone should not determine the result.
Ordinary DUI is not automatically treated the same as an offense requiring an additional culpable mental state or aggravating element. The specific statute must be reviewed.
Not necessarily. Immigration law has its own rules concerning whether a vacated or expunged conviction remains a conviction for immigration purposes.
Some applicants may qualify for statutory waiver relief, but eligibility depends on the immigration category, criminal history and particular waiver provision.
These statutory and government materials provide the principal legal framework discussed on this page.
A CIMT analysis should begin with the exact statute, conviction record and applicable statutory exceptions before deciding whether inadmissibility exists.