Good Moral Character (GMC), Naturalization N-400 application, Chicago District Office, Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS)

1. Lawfully Admitted for Permanent Residence
2. Continuity of Residence
3. Residency: Jurisdiction
4. Physical Presence
5. Good Moral Character
6. Attachment to the Constitution
7. English language proficiency and knowledge of United States history and government.

Naturalization applicants are required by law to appear in person before an USCIS District Adjudications Officer (DAO, formerly called an “Immigration Examiner”) for an "examination under oath."

District Adjudications Officers (DAO) must make a determination whether the applicant possesses the requisite Good Moral Character for purposes of naturalization. In making this determination, DAO's will primarily focus on the 5-year statutory period prior to filing of the N-400 application. Part 7 of the N-400, entitled Additional Factors of Eligibility has 15 questions which contain most of the grounds for finding a lack of GMC. In addition, DAOs "should always ask" the applicant the following questions, if applicable:

1. Have you ever failed to pay, or refused to pay, alimony, or failed to comply with a court order to pay alimony?
2. Have you ever failed to pay, or refused to pay, child support or failed to comply with a court order to pay child support?

If an applicant admits to having committed or been arrested, sentenced, or convicted for any crimes or offenses in violation of the law, or if the file contains evidence of any crimes or offenses, DAOs will focus on the number and type of offenses to determine whether the applicant lacks GMC based on this evidence.

A person will always lack GMC if, during the 5-year statutory period, he has committed one or more "crimes involving moral turpitude"(CIMT). The most common definition of a CIMT is "an act of baseness, vileness or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes to his fellow men or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and man."

If the applicant gives an affirmative response to any of the questions involving GMC in Part 7 (Questions No. 8, 9, 12, and 15) or if the cases involves CIMTs, DAOs will refer the applicant to a secondary officer for a traditional interview format.
------------------------------------
A list of crimes involving moral turpitude: This checklist is designed to provide a quick reference to the types of offenses which the Board of Immigration Appeals has found to be "Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude." This list is not exclusive and DAOs will consult with Service counsel for more in-depth information.

Crimes Against The Person

• Murder/Intentional Homicide
• Voluntary Manslaughter
• Homicide by Reckless Conduct
• Involuntary Manslaughter w/ Reckless Disregard
• Attempted Murder
• Kidnapping Mayhem
• Assault or Attempted Murder Upon Government Officers
• Carrying a Concealed Weapon w/ Intent to Use Against the Person of Another
• Assault w/ a Deadly Weapon
• Assault w/ Weapon Likely to Produce Bodily Harm
• Interfering w/ a Law Enforcement Officer w/ Use of Deadly Force
• Attempting to Obstruct/Impede the Progress of Justice
• Aggravated Assault Against a Peace Officer

Crimes Against Property

• Attempted Arson
• Blackmail/Extortion
• Forgery
• Uttering a Forged Instrument/Forged Prescription
• Making False Statements of Financial Condition
• Robbers'
• Embezzlement
• Larceny/Theft
• Grand theft
• Petty Theft
• Receiving Stolen Property
• Concealing Assets in Bankruptcy
• Encumbering Mortgaged Property w/ Intent to Defraud
• Fraudulently Issuing Check w/ Insufficient Funds
• Fraudulently Issuing Worthless Check
• Illegal use of ATM or Credit Card
• Passing Forged Instrument
• Attempted Fraud
• Using Mails to Defraud
• Making False Statements in Acquisition of Firearm
• Securities Fraud
• Welfare Fraud
• Transporting Stolen Property
• Obtaining Money by False Pretenses
• Bribery
• Malicious Trespass

Sexual and Family Crimes

• Assault w/ Intent to Commit Abortion
• Attempted Assault w/ Intent to Commit Carnal Abuse
• Statutory Rape/Rape
• Indecent Assault/Sexual Battery
• Adultery
• Bigamy
• Prostitution
• Sodomy
• Gross Indecency
• Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor/Sexual Acts
• Taking Indecent Liberties w/ a Child
• Incest
• Oral Sexual Perversion

Crimes Against the Government

• Falsely Issuing a Narcotic Prescription
• Offering a Bribe
• Making, Passing, or Possessing Counterfeit Coins
• Conspiracy to Violate IRS Laws
• Securities Fraud
• Counterfeiting
• Smuggling Merchandise
• Impersonating Federal Officer
• False Statements/Firearm
• False Statements or Entries
• Harboring a Fugitive
• Using False Names & Addresses to Violate Postal Laws
• Uttering/Selling False/Counterfeit Immigration Documents
• False Statements to Obtain a Passport
• False Statements in LPR Application
• Perjury
• Theft from U.S. Mail
• Taking Kickbacks
• Receiving Funds by False Statements
• Trafficking in Narcotics
• Failing to Report Income
• Union Official Unlawfully Accepting a Loan
• Kickbacks on Government Contracts
• False Statements/Selective Service
• Falsely Representing Social Security Number
• False Statements/Unemployment Benefits

_____________________________
(a) General Criteria . One of the most important basic requirements in naturalization is that of good moral character (GMC). An applicant for naturalization must show that, during the statutorily prescribed period, he or she has been and continues to be a person of good moral character. This period includes the time between the examination and the oath of allegiance. Although the law specifies that the good moral character requirement applies to the statutory period, conduct prior to that period may impact the adjudicator’s dec ision regarding whether or not an applicant meets the requirement. Consideration of the applicant’s conduct and acts outside the statutory period is specifically sanctioned by law if the applicant’s conduct during the statutory period does not reflect reform of character or the earlier conduct is relevant to the applicant’s present moral character. See section 316(e) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) and 8 CFR 316.10(a)(2) . Thus, when addressing the issue of good moral character, the examination should be broad enough and sufficiently detailed to disclose all relevant adverse conduct or activity. Although the focus should be on conduct during the statutory period, the inquiry should extend to the applicant’s conduct during his or her entire lifetime.

Good moral character should be determined on a case-by-case basis. Section 101(f) of the Act and 8 CFR 316.10 specifically provide that certain criminal conduct precludes a finding of good moral character. Section 101(f) also provides that an applicant may lack good moral character for reasons other than those described in 101(f)(1) – (f)(8). The courts have held that good moral character means character which measures up to the standards of average citizens of the community in which the applicant resides. Any conduct or acts which offend the accepted moral character standards of the community in which the applica nt resides should be considered, without regard to whether the applicant has been arrested or convicted.

(b) The Record and GMC . Although a GMC issue can arise at any time during the naturalization interview, the N-400 contains questions in Part 7 which are keyed directly to the good moral character requirement. See Chapter 74.2(g) of the AFM for a detailed discussion of each question in part 7. Some offenses which may preclude a finding of good moral character such as controlled substance violations, prostitution, smuggling, gambling, and habitual drunkenness which are not mentioned in this section, are discussed in detail in Chapter 74.2(g) of this manual. In general, these questions represent an effort to obtain a complete record of any criminal, unlawful, or questionable activity in which the applicant has ever engaged, regardless of whether such information eventually proves to be material to the moral character issue. The previous version of the N-400 falls short of this objective in relation to the arrest-related question (question 15B of Part 7). For example, many applicants will not mention arrests in which prosecution was declined or resulted in suspended sentences or not guilty verdicts, based on their own interpretation of what the arrest question means. The arrest-related questions on the revised N-400 were expanded in an effort to obtain a more complete arrest record.

Even with the expanded arrest-related questions, a mere reading of the question to the applicant does not always mean that accurate and complete testimony will be forthcoming. In each case, you should take into consideration the education level of the applicant and his or her knowledge of the English language. Then, based on these factors, you should rephrase the question in simple language, supplementing it with additional questions to the extent required for complete understanding by the applicant. The em phasis should always be in the direction of over-simplification and explanation, and the scope of the inquiry should always be clearly reflected in the record. Examples of clarifying questions include, “Have you ever been arrested, anywhere in the world?” “Has a police officer ever questioned you?” “Have you ever been handcuffed by a police officer?” “Have you ever been in a police station?” “Have you ever been in court?” “Have you ever been in jail, even if just for one night?” “Have you ever had a crimina l record diverted, expunged, or dismissed?” "Have you ever had a record sealed by a judge and been told that you did not have to reveal the criminal conduct?" An applicant, when confronted with a false statement in a subsequent legal challenge, may claim that he or she did not understand what the officer meant when pertinent questions were asked during the interview.

In addition, a well-documented record of proceeding will strengthen the case in the face of a subsequent legal challenge. The record should be clearly and thoroughly documented so that anyone reviewing the file knows exactly what happened at the interview without need for the interviewing officer’s explanation. It is of vital importance that you mark, in red ink, the questions in Part 7 that you ask during the interview. The check or circle marks must be made next to the answers to the questions. In particular, questions (15A) and (15B), relating to criminal history, capture information central to naturalization eligibility and must always be annotated during the interview.

Notations of the applicant’s testimony should be made on the N-400 to provide for a more complete record of the examination. Clear and legible notations will have more probative value in subsequent legal proceedings. For example, you may note, “admits to one arrest for petty theft in (year), one year probation only, states no other arrests” on the application of an applicant who admits to the arrest during the interview. Suppose, in fact, this applicant had an additional disqualifying arrest and conviction for assault and battery two months prior to the interview that he failed to disclose. You learned of the second arrest after the interview. You continued the case for expired fingerprints and the second fingerprint check revealed the additional arrest. Although you should call in the applicant to establish why he failed to disclose the arrest, the notations are objective evidence that can be used in a denial on false testimony grounds. A sworn statement should always be taken if the applicant admits to comm itting a crime for which he or she has not been arrested. See Chapter 74.2(g), question (15A) regarding the admission of crimes for which an applicant has not been arrested. See also Chapter 15.6 regarding sworn statements. A sworn statement should also be taken when an applicant provides false testimony. See Chapter 74.2(g), question (12) part (H) , False Testimony .

(c) Definition of “Conviction ”. Most of the criminal offenses that preclude a finding of good moral character require a conviction for the disqualifying offense. Sometimes, it is difficult to determine if the outcome of the arrest resulted in a conviction. Various states have provisions for diminishing the effects of a conviction. In some states, adjudication may be “deferred” upon a finding or confession of guilt. Some states have a “diversion” program whereby the case is taken out of the normal criminal proceedings in order to avoid criminal prosecution and so that the person may benefit from a counseling or treatment program.

Prior to the passage of the 96 Act (IIRIRA), Matter of Ozkok , 19 I&N Dec. 546 (BIA 1988) defined “conviction” for immigration purposes. That decision set forth a “3- pronged test” for determining convictions:

•the alien pled guilty or nolo contendere or was found guilty of the charges against him or her.
•the judge ordered some form of punishment, penalty, or restraint of liberty to be imposed.
•a judgment of adjudication of guilt may be entered without further proceeding regarding guilt or innocence if the person violated the terms of probation or failed to comply with the requirements of the court order.

In the 96 Act, Congress broadened the scope of the definition of “conviction” by deleting the “3 rd prong”. The definition of “conviction” in Matter of Ozkok is no longer in effect. Section 101(a)(48)(A) of the Act defines “conviction” as:

1. a judge or jury has found the alien guilty or the alien entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere or has admitted sufficient facts to warrant a finding of guilt, and
2. the judge has ordered some form of punishment penalty, or restraint on the alien’s liberty to be imposed.

By removing the third prong of Ozkok , Congress intended that even in cases where the adjudication is “deferred”, the original finding or confession of guilt and imposition of punishment is sufficient to establish a “conviction” for immigration purposes.

(1) Effect of Expungement . Post-IIRIRA, expungements do not remove the underlying conviction in many cases. In Matter of Roldan , Int. Dec. #3377 (BIA 1999), the BIA held that a state court action to “expunge, dismiss, cancel, vacate, discharge, or otherwise remove a guilty plea or other record of guilt or conviction by operation of a state rehabilitative statute” has no effect. The regulations already provide that an expungement of a controlled substance violation does not affect the conviction. See 8 CFR 316.10(c)(3)(i) . Also, a second crime involving moral turpitude that is expunged is still considered a conviction. See 8 CFR 316.10 (c)(3)(ii) . Post IIRIRA, other expungements will not be given effect. If you are unsure of the effect of a particular expungement, contact your local district counsel .

The USCIS can in all cases require an applicant to bring in evidence of a conviction, even if the conviction has been expunged. It remains the applicant’s responsibility to obtain his or her record, even if it has been sealed by the court. In some cases the USCIS may file a motion with the court to obtain a copy of the record in states where the applicant cannot obtain it.

(d) Finding of a Lack of Good Moral Character . Finding a lack of good moral character may occur as a result of a statutory bar that precludes the applicant from establishing good moral character, or may occur as a result of a discretionary finding of a lack of good moral character by the adjudicating officer. An applicant may commit a certain act or acts that effectively and permanently bar him or her from naturalizing, in all cases and under all circumstances, or may commit a lesser offense during the statutory period that may conditionally bar him o r her from establishing good moral character. Other less serious acts require the adjudicating officer to take into consideration the nature of the offense(s), the applicant’s overall conduct, and other factors relevant to the definition of good moral character.

(1) Permanent Statutory Bars to Establishing Good Moral Character .
• Murder . If an applicant is convicted of murder at any time, he or she can never establish good moral character. See 8 CFR 316.10(b)(1)(i) . If the applicant has ever been convicted of murder, you should deny the naturalization application and consider whether the case should be referred for removal proceedings.
• Aggravated Felony Committed On or After November 29, 1990 . The definition of “aggravated felony” is in section 101(a)(43) of the Act. It is of vital importance that all interviewing officers are very familiar with what crimes constitute an aggravated felony. Some offenses require a minimum term of imprisonment to qualify as an “aggravated felony”. For example, a theft offense and a crime of violence are aggravated felonies if the term of imprisonment is at least one year. Note that the term of imprisonment is deemed to be the period of confinement ordered by the court regardless of whether the sentence was actually imposed. S ee section 101(a)(48)(b) of the Act. In IIRIRA, Congress expanded the offenses considered aggravated felonies and amended the definition to apply to offenses that occurred at any time.

For naturalization purposes, an applicant convicted of an aggravated felony on or after November 29, 1990, regardless of when the crime was committed, is permanently precluded from establishing good moral character. Accordingly, an application for naturalization filed by an individual convicted of an aggravated felony on or after November 29, 1990, must be denied. Moreover, the case should be considered for possible initiation of removal proceedings because an individual convicted of an aggravated felony at anytime is removable. See section 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the Act.

(2) Conditional Bars to Establishing Good Moral Character .

(A) Effect of Crime Involving Moral Turpitude (CIMT) Convictions . An applicant who commits and is convicted of or admits to committing one or more crimes involving moral turpitude during the statutory period cannot establish good moral character and is ineligible for naturalization. See 8 CFR 316.10(b)(2)(i) . However, there is an exception to the general rule, which you must consider. See section 212(a)(2)(A)(ii)(II) of the Act. The exception applies if the applicant has committed only one CIMT and the crime is a petty offense. A petty offense is defined as a crime for which the maximum penalty possible for the crime does not exceed imprisonment for one year and , if there is a conviction, the term of imprisonment does not exceed six months, regardless of suspension. Thus, an individual convicted of a CIMT will only qualify for the exception if the two conditions are satisfied. Not only must the sentence imposed have been less than six months, the maximum possible sentence that could have been imposed must not exceed one year.

For example, suppose an applicant commits petty theft in the statutory period. This was his or her only conviction. The applicant was fined and sentenced to one year of probation and community service. The maximum possible sentence for this conviction is 364 days. No term of imprisonment was imposed. The applicant meets both conditions of the petty offense exception and is not precluded from establishing GMC. In the above example, if the applicant had also received a suspended jail sentence of eight months, he or she would not meet the exception because he or she does not meet the second condition of the petty offense exception. The petty offense exception is inapplicable to an alien who has been convicted of or who admits the commission of more than one crime involving moral turpitude, even if only one of the two or more CIMTs was committed during the statutory period. An applicant who has committed more than one petty offense, only one of which is a CIMT, remains eligible for consideration of the petty offense exception.

(B) Definition of a Crime Involving Moral Turpitude (CIMT) . As defined in case law, moral turpitude generally refers to conduct which is inherently base, vile, or depraved, contrary to the accepted rules of morality and the duties owed to persons or society in general. See Matter of Flores , 17 I&N, Dec. 225 (BIA 1980), and cases cited therein. It is defined as conduct which is morally reprehensible and intrinsically wrong, the essence of which is an evil or malicious intent.

In determining whether a crime is one that involves moral turpitude, one must look to the nature of the offense itself. Matter of Esfandiary , 16 I&N Dec. 659 (BIA 1979) . Additionally, whether or not a crime is a CIMT often depends on whether or not a state statute includes one of the elements that introduces moral turpitude. A crime with the same name may be a CIMT in one state but not in another if the state statutes define the crime differently. Conspiracy to commit a crime considered a CIMT is also a CIMT in itself. If you are unsure if a crime involves moral turpitude, contact your local district counsel.

The general categories of crimes which involve moral turpitude contained in this reference guide are as follows:

• Crimes against a person . Crimes against a person involve moral turpitude when criminal intent or recklessness is an element of the offense, or when the crime is defined as morally reprehensible by state statute, e.g. statutory rape. Criminal intent or recklessness may be inferred from the presence of unjustified violence or the use of a dangerous weapon. Aggravated battery is usually, if not always, a CIMT. Assault and battery is usually not a CIMT.

•Crimes against property. Moral turpitude attaches to any crime against property which involves fraud, whether it entails fraud against the government or an individual. Certain crimes against property may require guilty knowledge or an intent to permanently take property. Theft (petty and grand), forgery, and robbery are CIMTs in some states. Possession of Burglary Tools and Loan Sharking are usually not CIMTs.

• Sexual and family crimes. It is difficult to discern a distinguishing set of principles which the courts apply to determine whether a particular offense is a CIMT. In some cases, the presence or absence of violence seems to be an important factor. The presence or absence of criminal intent can be a determining factor. Spousal abuse and child abuse can be CIMTs. For example, the Simple Assault, Domestic charge used by some states generally does not rise to the level of being a CIMT. Indecent Exposure and Abandonment of a Minor Child are also not CIMTs in some states.

• Crimes against the authority of the government . The presence of fraud is the main determining factor as to the presence of moral turpitude. Offering a Bribe to a Government Official and Counterfeiting are CIMTs. Possession of Counterfeit Securities (Without Intent) and Contempt of Court are not CIMTs.

(C) Controlled Substance Violations . Per section 101(f)(3) of the Act and 8 CFR 316.10(b)(2)(iii) , an applicant who has violated any law of the United States, of any state within the United States, or of any foreign country relating to a controlled substance is precluded from establishing good moral character, unless the violation was for a single offense of simple possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana. See Chapter 74.2(g), question 12 parts (A) and (F) for more details regarding these types of violations.

(D) Incarceration . Per section 101(f)(7) of the Act and 8 CFR 316.10(b)(2)(v) , an applicant who has been confined, as a result of conviction, to a penal institution for an aggregate period of 180 days or more cannot establish good moral character, unless the confinement was outside the United States due to a conviction of a purely political offense committed outside the United States. See Chapter 74.2(g), question 15B for more details regarding incarceration.

(E) False Testimony . An individual who gives false testimony during the statutory period for the purpose of obtaining any benefit under the Act is precluded from establishing good moral character. See section 101(f)(6) of the Act and 8 CFR 316.10(b)(2)(vi) . The most common occurrence of false testimony is failure to disclose a criminal or other adverse record, but false testimony can occur in any area. False testimony may relate to facts about lawful admission, absences, residence, marital status or infidelity, employment, organizational membership, tax filing information, or any of the multitudes of facts that are developed during a naturalization interview. False testimony, in any area, occurs when the individual deliberately intends to deceive the government while under oath in order to obtain citizenship, regardless of whether the information provided in the false testimony was material, in the sense that if given truthfully it would have made the applicant ineligible for naturalization. For example, an applicant may conceal an arrest that occurred outside or within the statutory period, believing that the disclosure of the arrest would bar his or her naturalization, even though the arrest was minor in nature and would not have an adverse effect upon his o r her eligibility. The applicant’s false testimony, in itself, denotes a lack of good moral character and renders the applicant ineligible for naturalization on the present application and on any future naturalization application until the false testimony date is outside of the statutory period.

There are three elements to false testimony that must exist for a naturalization application to be denied on false testimony grounds. In accordance with the Supreme Court decision in Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759, 780-81 (1988) [ Appendix 74-6 ], the elements of false testimony are:

• Oral statements. “Testimony” for the purposes of section 101(f)(6) of the Act must be oral. False statements in an application, whether or not under oath, do not constitute “testimony”. Falsified documents do not constitute “testimony”. Further, the oral statement must be an affirmative misrepresentation. The Kungys decision makes it clear that there has been no false testimony if facts are merely concealed. Thus, incomplete but otherwise truthful answers will not rise to the level of false testimony. Concealment of the existence of a conviction is not false testimony. Fo r example, an individual has two convictions in the statutory period: one DUI conviction and one conviction for Assault and Battery. In response to the “arrest” question, the applicant testifies, “Yes, I was arrested for DUI and given one year probation.” That testimony is not false. It does conceal the existence of the other conviction, but is not an affirmative misrepresentation and is not, therefore, false testimony. To solve this problem, ALWAYS ask a follow-up question after a known concealment, such a s, “Are there any other arrests?” Assuming the applicant answers “no”, he has now provided false testimony.
• Under Oath . The oral statement must be made under oath in order to constitute false testimony. Oral statements to officers that are not under oath do not constitute false testimony.

• With Subjective Intent to obtain an immigration benefit . An individual must be providing the false testimony in order to obtain an immigration benefit. False testimony provided for any other reason does not preclude an individual from establishing good moral character. Subjective intent is often the most difficult aspect of sustaining a false testimony denial. As the government acknowledges in Kungys v. the United States :

“It is only dishonesty accompanied by this precise intent that Congress found morally unacceptable. Willful misrepresentations made for other reasons, such as embarrassment, fear, or a desire for privacy, were not deemed sufficiently culpable to brand the applicant as someone who lacks good moral character.”

For Illinois applicants read this case: Plewa vs. INS, 77 F. Supp. 2d 905; 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19652 (1999)

(F) Prostitution . Per section 101(f)(3) of the Act and 8 CFR 316.10(b)(2)(vii) , an applicant who has been involved with prostitution or commercialized vice as described in section 212(a)(2)(D) of the Act is precluded from establishing good moral character. Solicitation of a prostitute is not the same as procurement for purposes of prostitution as used in section 101(f)(3) of the Act. See Chapter 74.2(g) question 12 part (D) for additional discussion of prostitution.

(G) Gambling Offenses . Per section 101(f)(4) and section 101(f)(5) of the Act, and paragraphs (2)(x) and (2)(xi) of 8 CFR 316.10 (b) , an applicant who has committed and has been convicted for two or more gambling offenses, or who derives his or her income principally from illegal gambling activities is precluded from establishing good moral character. See Chapter 74.2(g) question 12 part (G) for additional discussion of gambling offenses.

(H) Probation and Parole . The USCIS is precluded from approving an application for naturalization while the applicant is on probation, parole, or under a suspended sentence per 8 CFR 316.10(c)(1) . An applicant who has satisfactorily completed probation, parole, or a suspended sentence during the statutory period is not precluded from establishing good moral character per se. However, the fact that an applicant was on probation or parole, or under a suspended sentence during the statutory period should be considered in determining whether that applicant can establish good moral character.

(3) Discretionary Finding of a Lack of Good Moral Character. In addition to examining the applicant’s record to determine if there are circumstances that preclude the applicant from establishing good moral character, you must determine if an applicant should be denied as a matter of discretion for a lack of good moral character. Discretionary findings should be made on a case-by-case basis, and should include consideration of all factors relevant to the case. The proper exercise of discretion involves considering these relevant factors as they relate to U.S. law, F ederal regulations, precedent decisions and their interpretations, and General Counsel opinions. Political decisions, ideological beliefs, and personal opinions about the strictness or leniency of the law must not be considered while exercising discretion. Although each decision must be made on a case-by-case basis, you should strive for consistency in application of the law while exercising discretion. Chapter 10.15 of this field manual discusses the proper application of discretion during adjudications.

(A) Aggravated Felony Committed Prior to November 29, 1990 . An aggravated felony conviction prior to November 29, 1990, does not preclude a finding of good moral character for purposes of naturalization. See Legal Opinion 96-16 . However, such a conviction would still be relevant to making an overall determination whether the individual has met his or her burden of establishing good moral character during the statutory period. This is especially so in light of Congress' expansion of the offenses considered aggravated felonies, and the fact that an applicant convicted of an aggravated felony at any time after admission is subject to removal pursuant to section 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the Act. It is important to note that the agency may not consider an application for naturalization where removal proceedings are pending against the applicant. See section 318 of the Act.

The fact that proceedings are not initiated and the fact that the applicant was not convicted of an aggravated felony on or after November 29, 1990, does not mean that the individual has met the burden of affirmatively establishing good moral character. See section 101(f) of the Act ("the fact that any person is not within (subsections (1) through (8)) does not preclude a finding that for other reasons such person is or was not of good moral character."); see also 8 CFR 316.10(a)(2) . Accordingly, you should consider the seriousness of the aggravated felony conviction committed in the past combined with the applicant's present moral character measured against the standards of the community. If the applicant's actions during the statutory period do not reflect a reform of character, then the applicant may not be able to demonstrate good moral character during the statutory period pursuant to section 101(f) , and section 316(e) of the Act, and 8 CFR 316.10(a)(2) . In such cases, the application for naturalization should be denied.

For example, an applicant may have been a convicted drug dealer prior to November 29, 1990. His or her conviction(s) prior to November 29, 1990, are aggravated felonies pursuant to section 101(a)(43) of the Act. Moreover, while such conviction(s) render him or her removable pursuant per section 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) , the District Director has chosen to exercise prosecutorial discretion in his or her case, and has not initiated removal proceedings (see the November 17, 2000 INS memorandum titled Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion for guidance). Nonetheless, if the record obtained during the naturalization application process shows a continued pattern of drug-related or other criminal activity, other negative factors such as lack of steady employment, home life, or conduct generally showing a lack of rehabilitation, th e applicant may be found to lack good moral character pursuant to section 101(f) and section 316(e) of the Act, 8 CFR 316.10(a)(2) , and possibly 8 CFR 316.10(b)(3)(iii) .

(B) Additional Grounds for Discretionary Denial . The following denial grounds involve a considerable degree of discretion. They are acts which may preclude a lack of good moral character that are specifically contained in the regulations. The regulations provide that you must consider any extenuating circumstances surrounding the commission of these acts:

• Support of dependents. Unless the applicant can establish extenuating circumstances, willful failure or refusal to support dependents precludes a finding of good moral character. See 8 CFR 316.10(3)(i) and Interpretations 316.1(f)(5) . For a detailed discussion of child support issues related to good moral character, see Chapter 74.2(f)(2) of this field manual.
• Adultery - Formerly section 101(f)(2) of the Act. Adultery as a mandatory bar to establishing good moral character was repealed by the Act of December 29, 1981. A detailed historical discussion on adultery as it relates to good moral character is contained in Interpretations 316.1(g)(2). Per 8 CFR 316.10(3)(ii) , an extramarital affair which tended to destroy an existing marriage shall preclude a finding of good moral character, unless the applicant establishes extenuating circumstances. If the lawful marriage ceased to be viable and intact before the commission of the adultery, such sexual misconduct without cohabitation does not support a finding of lack of good moral character.
• Unlawful Acts . [Revised as of 09-19-2005; AD05-35] The regulations provide for a finding of lack of good moral character based on discretionary grounds. An applicant may lack good moral character if he or she has committed unlawful acts that adversely reflect upon his or her moral character, or was convicted or imprisoned for such acts, unless the applicant can establish extenuating circumstances. See 8 CFR 316.10(b)(3)(iii) .

Proper application of this regulation requires the examining officer to make an individualized determination as to whether the applicant’s unlawful acts in fact reflect adversely upon the applicant’s moral character. In order to make such a determination, the examining officer must consider not only the nature and magnitude of the unlawful act but also the circumstances surrounding the conduct, including any mitigating or favorable factors (“extenuating circumstances”).

If the officer determines that the applicant’s unlawful acts do adversely reflect upon the applicant’s moral character, the applicant should be given the opportunity during the interview to establish extenuating circumstances. The applicant’s file should be annotated accordingly. The officer will consider evidence of extenuating circumstances if the evidence directly pertains to the applicant’s commission of the unlawful act.

In order to pertain to the commission of an unlawful act, an extenuating circumstance must precede or be contemporaneous to the commission of the unlawful act during the statutory period of required good moral character (“statutory period”). No conduct or equities (including evidence of reformation or rehabilitation) subsequent to the commission of the unlawful act during the statutory period shall be considered as an extenuating circumstance.

Additionally, any evidence of extenuating circumstances offered by the applicant “must pertain to the reasons showing lack of good moral character, including acts negating good character, not to the consequences of these matters, including the consequence” of ineligibility for naturalization. Jean-Baptiste v. United States , 395 F.3d 1190 (11th Cir.2005), citing Rico v. INS, 262 F.Supp.2d 6 (E.D.N.Y.2003).

This section of the regulation can be used when the unlawful act is not specifically mentioned in paragraph (1) or (2) of 8 CFR 316.10(b) . For example, the commission of a petty theft (a CIMT) in the statutory period should be considered for denial under 8 CFR 316.10(b)(2) , not 8 CFR 316.10(b)(3)(iii) . Conversely, convictions for Disorderly Conduct and basic Driving While Intoxicated do not fall under any category of disqualifying offenses listed in the statute or regulations.

Nevertheless, based on the facts of your particular case, you may decide the applicant’s conduct during the statutory period precludes a finding of good moral character under 8 CFR 316.10(b)(3)(iii) . Discretion must be applied on a case-by-case basis. The statute does not provide that ALL unlawful acts and/or criminal convictions merit a finding of lack of good moral character. Thus, circumstances surrounding the commission of the act are material to your decision. External factors that disclose purpose, motivation, and explanation assume importance.

- Is this the applicant’s only offense?
- Did the unlawful act occur early or late in the statutory period?
- What was the final outcome of the arrest?
- How long was the applicant on probation?
- Did the applicant comply with all conditions of the probation?

Because denial of naturalization under these provisions is not mandatory, you will need to be able to justify your finding in each case.

Nevertheless, based on the facts of your particular case, you may decide the applicant’s conduct during the statutory period precludes a finding of good moral character under 8 CFR 316.10(b)(3)(iii) . Discretion must be applied on a case-by-case basis. The statute does not provide that ALL unlawful acts and/or criminal convictions merit a finding of lack of good moral character. Thus, circumstances surrounding the commission of the act are material to your decision. External factors that disclose purpose, motivation, and explanation assume importance. Is this the applicant’s only offense? Did the unlawful act occur early or late in the statutory period? What was the final outcome of the arrest? How lon g was the applicant on probation? Did the applicant comply with all conditions of the probation? Because denial of naturalization under these provisions is not mandatory, you will need to be able to justify your finding in each case.

(4) Other Factors Affecting Good Moral Character . The application also contains other information in a number of areas which, when developed by proper examination, may have an indirect or less obvious bearing upon the issue of good moral character. Questions regarding the applicant’s occupation, method of lawful entry, tax filing, residences, absences, marital status and children may reveal issues that affect the applicant’s good moral character and may indicate areas that need to be explored further. This is the case even if a denial on the basis of oth er grounds, such as under INA Section 318 for not lawfully obtaining LPR status, is more appropriate than a denial for lacking good moral character.

Fraudulent admission . Examine for evidence of past fraud in the immigration process regarding the applicant’s status and the dependent’s status. The applicant may have obtained admission as a lawful permanent resident through a fraudulent marriage. The applicant may have concealed the marriage and entered as an unmarried son or daughter. You may discover this fact when, reviewing the birth certificates of the applicant’s children, you discover that he or she was married at the time of immigration as a second preference unmarried child of an alien resident (P22/F24). Or, when reviewing the N-400, you see that the applicant is now claiming a spouse that appears to make his or her admission as a permanent resident invalid. If he or she acquired permanent residence through an employment-based petition, he or she may never have met the requirements of the petition. The applicant may have obtained lawful permanent residence through a fraudulent legalization application. If a fraudulent admission is established, you may deny the natura lization application pursuant to section 318 of the Act because the applicant was not lawfully admitted for permanent residence. Detailed discussions concerning the above are found in Chapter 74.2, question (1) part (C) , Immigration Status .

The following example emphasizes the importance of examining the validity of the applicant’s status at the time of his/her entry into the U.S.

The following is a summary of the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit’s decision involving an alien that fraudulently entered the United States as an unmarried son of a legal permanent resident alien.

On October 19, 1984, Raymoundo Montilla Bernal immigrated to the United States, representing himself to be the unmarried son of a lawful permanent resident alien. As it turned out, however, Mr. Bernal had previously married Girlie M. Marty, a citizen of the Philippines, in a civil ceremony in the Philippines on November 16, 1980. The ceremony was performed by the Municipal Mayor of Subic. The marriage was attended by the couple’s parents and was witnessed by them. It was also recorded in the municipal regis try of the city of Subic.

On November 20, 1989, Mr. Bernal applied to become a naturalized citizen of the United States. During his naturalization interview conducted on May 24, 1990, Mr. Bernal stated under oath to the INS examiner that he had not been married in either a civil or a religious ceremony before immigrating to the United States in 1984. In his application for naturalization, he noted that he was married to Girlie M. Marty in the United States on June 3, 1986 in a ceremony in the United States.

Mr. Bernal gave false testimony under oath before a naturalization examiner. During Mr. Bernal’s naturalization examination, he was sworn under oath. Under oath, he misled the INS officer about his marital status at the time of his immigration to the United States. The INS officer recorded Mr. Bernal’s pertinent answers on the interview form and annotated the form in red ink. The officer noted that Mr. Bernal “claims no other wives: subject states he was single and not married in either a religious or civil ceremony prior to immigrating to the U.S.A. in 1984.”

On January 13, 1991, the INS issued an order to show cause charging Mr. Bernal with deportability for being within a class of aliens excludable at the time of entry. The INS charged that Mr. Bernal’s immigrant visa was obtained by fraud or by willful misrepresentation of a material fact concerning his marital status.

In order to be eligible for suspension of deportation, an applicant must be physically present in the United States for seven years prior to the issuance of a notice to appear and must show “good moral character” for the seven-year period. For purposes of the INA, an applicant cannot be regarded as a person of good moral character if “during the period for which good moral character is required to be established,” the applicant gave “false testimony for the purpose of obtaining benefits under this chapter.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)(6).

The IJ found Mr. Bernal had immigrated to the United States by falsely representing himself as an unmarried child of a permanent resident alien. The IJ concluded that Mr. Bernal could not demonstrate good moral character for the required seven years in light of his false testimony before the naturalization examiner in 1990. The IJ denied Mr. Bernal’s application for relief from deportation and for voluntary departure and ordered him deported. Upon appeal by the applicant, the 9 th Circuit Court subsequently upheld the IJ’s decision.

Note that this whole case rested on the adjudicator asking proper questions and making proper annotations on the N-400.

When the adjudicator carefully conducts the examination and properly annotates the N-400, the USCIS has more objective evidence that can be used in any subsequent legal challenge.

For the complete decision please see Bernal v INS , 154 F.3d 1020 (9 th Cir. 1998).

• Legalization or Special Agricultural Worker (SAW) fraud . The legalization regulations at 8 CFR 245a.3(n)(4(ii) and 8 CFR 245a.4(b)(23)(iv) permit information contained in granted legalization files (W16 and W26) to be used at a later date to make a decision on a naturalization application. Naturalization may be denied if the applicant fraudulently gained lawful permanent residence through a legalization application USCIS can establish was fraudulent. You may not use information contained in SAW files (S16 and S26) to make a decision on a naturalization application . The confidentiality clause prohibits you from questioning an applicant regarding any information provided by the applicant relative to his or her SAW application. See section 210(a)(6)(A) of the Act. Further, Matter of Masri , 22 I&N Dec. 1145 (BIA 1999) states the following:

“Information provided in an application to adjust an alien’s status to that of a lawful temporary resident under section 210 of the Act is confidential and prohibited from use in rescission proceedings under section 246 of the Act, or for any purpose other than to make a determination on an application for lawful temporary residence, to terminate such temporary residence, or to prosecute the alien for fraud during the time of application.”

However, the fact that an applicant was a SAW does not preclude you from questioning that applicant about his or her SAW status and from denying the application based on your findings. A direct admission by the applicant during the naturalization examination that he or she never did agricultural work can be used as a basis for denying his or her application. Additionally, indirect evidence that the applicant obtained SAW status fraudulently or did not meet the conditions for obtaining SAW status may be suff icient basis for denial. For example, if a SAW applicant claims her children were born in her country of origin during the qualifying period for SAW eligibility, then the evidence of her children’s birth indicates that she was not physically present in the U.S. during the qualifying period. This evidence is not “information provided in an application to adjust an alien’s status to that of a lawful temporary resident under Section 210,” hence it can be used as a basis for denial. A detailed discussion on thi s topic is found in Chapter 74.2, question (1) part (C) , Immigration Status .

• Future fraud . Examine for the possibility of future fraud regarding additional beneficiaries never before claimed or acknowledged. Sometimes, in anticipation of obtaining citizenship and the ability to quickly sponsor children on I-130 petitions, some applicants claim relatives on their N-400 who are not their children in the belief that this will facilitate the process. If an applicant also orally testifies to this claim in addition to listing relatives who are not actually his or her children, then this constitutes f alse testimony for the purpose of obtaining benefits under the Act (in this case, a benefit for a relative), and is grounds for denial of the naturalization application.

74.1 General Information and Introduction to Form N-400

74.2 Part-by-Part Discussion of Form N-400 Data

74.2(a) Part 1: Information About You

74.2(b) Part 2 of the N-400

74.2(c) Part 3 of the N-400

74.2(d) Part 4 of the N-400

74.2(e) Part 5 of the N-400

74.2(f) Part 6 of the N-400

74.2(g) Part 7 of the N-400

74.2(h) Part 8: Allegiance to the U.S.

74.2(i) Part 9 of the N-400

74.2(j) Part 10 of the N-400

74.2(k) Part 11 of the N-400

74.2(l) Part 12 of the N-400

74.3 Closing Actions

Domestic Battery Conviction , Illinois and Removal, Deportation from the United States

Domestic violence and related convictions will cause immigration problems not only for individuals that have a pending application for permanent resident status (green card) with the local CIS office but also for individuals that are already permanent residents or those who seek to apply for United States citizenship through naturalization.

Several years ago, Congress amended the Immigration law to include a conviction for domestic violence as ground of deportability. A felony conviction for domestic violence can serve as a basis for deportation even if no jail time was imposed or actually served. 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i). A misdemeanor domestic violence conviction is not necessarily a "crime of violence" for deportation purposes, unless the "offense has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another."

In Flores v. Ashcroft the Seventh Circuit held that a respondent convicted under the Indiana Battery statute was not deportable for a crime involving domestic violence because there was not a substantial risk that the offense involved the use of force. November 26, 2003, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 24051

Sec. 12-3.2 Domestic Battery (720 ILCS 5/12-3.2) (from Ch. 38, par. 12-3.2)

(a) A person commits domestic battery if he intentionally or knowingly without legal justification by any means:

(1) Causes bodily harm to any family or household member as defined in subsection (3) of Section 112A-3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963, as amended;

(2) Makes physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature with any family or household member as defined in subsection (3) of Section 112A-3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963, as amended.

(b) Sentence. Domestic battery is a Class A Misdemeanor. Domestic battery is a Class 4 felony if the defendant has any prior conviction under this Code for domestic battery

Sec. 12-3.3 Aggravated domestic battery (720 ILCS 5/12-3.3)

(a) A person who, in committing a domestic battery, intentionally or knowingly causes great bodily harm, or permanent disability or disfigurement commits aggravated domestic battery.

(b) Sentence. Aggravated domestic battery is a Class 2 felony. Any order of probation or conditional discharge entered following a conviction for an offense under this Section must include, in addition to any other condition of probation or conditional discharge, a condition that the offender serve a mandatory term of imprisonment of not less than 60 consecutive days. A person convicted of a second or subsequent violation of this Section must be sentenced to a mandatory term of imprisonment of not less than 3 years and not more than 7 years or an extended term of imprisonment of not less than 7 years and not more than 14 years. (Source: P.A. 91445, eff. 1‑1‑00.)

In Flores v. Ashcroft the Seventh Circuit held that a respondent convicted under the Indiana Battery statute was not deportable for a crime involving domestic violence because there was not a substantial risk that the offense involved the use of force. November 26, 2003. http://callyourlawyers.com/pdfcaselaw/flores_v_ashcroft_7th.pdf

REMOVABLE OFFENSES

The term "conviction" under Immigration law: * * * The term "conviction" means with respect to an alien, a formal judgment of guilt of the alien entered by a court or, if adjudication of guilt has been withheld, where (i) a judge or jury has found the alien guilty or the alien has entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere or has admitted sufficient facts to warrant a finding of guilt, and (ii) the judge has ordered some form of punishment, penalty, or restraint on the alien's liberty to be imposed. * * * (8 U.S.C. 101(a)(48)(A)

Whether an aggravated felony or crime of moral turpitude, it is important to note that it is the “conviction” that counts. Dismissals, acquittals, adjudications (juvenile convictions) or no-paper charges do not count for immigration purposes. However, pleading guilty or even admitting to the facts supporting the elements of the offense may be considered as a conviction, even if the crimminal law does not recognize the conviction until the time a sentence has been entered (Judgment and Commitment Order). Sentences containing fines or probation constitute a conviction for immigration purposes. A deferred sentence counts only when there has been an admission of the facts beforehand. Convictions that are later set aside or expunged count as convictions if there has been an admission of the facts. In determining the length of the sentence, immigration authorities look to the term of the actual sentence, and not to the time that the offender is exposed to by statute.

Probationary sentences will trigger immigration consequenses if a term of incarceration is imposed but suspended. Probation will not trigger immigration consequences if the judge opts not to impose a sentence at all (known as an imposition of the sentence suspended, or an ISS sentence). In the case of an ISS sentence, if the candidate successfully completes probation, there are no immigration consequences because an actual sentence was never imposed. However, immigration consequences are triggered if the offender's probation is ever revoked, as the court will impose a sentence at the time of revocation. Thus, for immigration purposes it always best to request an ISS sentence for a probationary candidate.

Crimes of Moral Turpitude. Any alien who - (I) is convicted of a crime involving "moral turpitude" committed within five years (or 10 years in the case of an alien provided lawful permanent resident status under section 1255(j) of this title) after the date of admission, and (II) is convicted of a crime for which a sentence of one year or longer may be imposed, is deportable.

Multiple Criminal Convictions. Any alien who at any time after admission is convicted of two or more crimes involving moral turpitude, not arising out of a single scheme of criminal misconduct, regardless of whether confined therefore and regardless of whether the convictions were in a single trial, is deportable.

Felony aggravated domestic battery is a "crime involving moral turpitude" (CIMT), an aggravated felony (only if one year of jail or more is actually imposed), and constitutes a domestic violence ground for deportation.

A felony aggravated battery conviction would be enough for ICE to charge as CIMT within 10 years of non citizen obtaining green card and/or as Agg. Felon/crime of violence if jail sentence imposed was more than one year.

Aggravated Felony: Any alien who is convicted of an aggravated felony (Sec.1101(a)(43) at any time after admission is deportable. (worst provision; no bail or relief) (f) a crime of violence (as defined in section 16 of title 18, but not including a purely political offense) for which the term of imprisonment is at least one year; A "crime of violence" under § 16(b) has two elements: (1) that the crime is a felony; and (2) that the crime, "by its nature," involves a substantial risk that physical force may be used. Under federal law, a crime is a "felony" if the maximum term of imprisonment authorized for the offense is "more than 1 year." See 18 U.S.C. § 3559(a) (Q) an offense relating to a failure to appear by a defendant for service of sentence if the underlying offense is punishable by imprisonment for a term of 5 years or more;

Domestic Violence

8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i): Any alien admitted to the United States shall, upon the order of the Attorney General, be removed if the alien is within one or more of the following classes of deportable aliens: . . . (2)(E)(i) Any alien who at any time after admission is convicted of a crime of domestic violence . . . . For purposes of this clause, the term "crime of domestic violence" means any crime of violence (as defined in section 16 of Title 18) . . . by any individual against a person who is protected from that individual's acts under the domestic or family violence laws of the United States or any State, Indian tribal government, or unit of local government.

"Crime of Violence" With respect to the first prong of the § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i) analysis, 18 U.S.C. § 16 defines a "crime of violence" as follows:

(a) an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another, or (b) any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.

A "crime of violence" under § 16(b) has two elements: (1) that the crime is a felony; and (2) that the crime, "by its nature," involves a substantial risk that physical force may be used. Under federal law, a crime is a "felony" if the maximum term of imprisonment authorized for the offense is "more than 1 year." See 18 U.S.C. § 3559(a)

The BIA states that an offense does not fall within the definition of a "crime of domestic violence" under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i) unless (1) the crime is a "crime of violence" as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 16, and (2) the person against whom the crime was committed was a "protected person" within the meaning of § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i). Applying its traditional categorical approach to criminal convictions, the Immigration Judge/BIA would hold that (1) a felony conviction constituted a "crime of violence" because the crime, as defined by Illinois case law, requires an intentional touching that caused bodily harm and was non-consensual and, therefore, involves a substantial risk that physical force may be used, and (2) victim /spouse was a "protected person" under Illinois criminal and civil law.

[DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: The offense of aggravated stalking pursuant to section 750.411i of the Michigan Compiled Laws Annotated is a crime involving moral turpitude Matter of AJAMI, Interim Decision #3405, 1999)

A single conviction for misdemeanor domestic battery is not an Aggravated felony- as a crime of violence, and is not necessarily CIMT, unless non citizen has two or more unrelated convictions for CIMT.

A misdemeanor domestic battery conviction- regardless of jail time imposed or served by non citizen –does not necessarily fall within domestic violence Ground of removability. Flores V. Ashcroft

A simple misdemeanor battery (not domestic battery) conviction, and jail sentence of up to 364 days, charged as "offensive touching" (not bodily harm), could be argued does not constitute CIMT and clearly does not constitute a domestic violence or aggravated felony grounds for removal. ________________________________________________________________________

An Immigration Judge in Arizona recently terminated a deportation proceeding based on domestic violence-related misdemeanor convictions after concluding that the convictions were not “crimes of violence” under the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA).

The INA describes various types of criminal conduct that can render an alien deportable. This list, increased by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) in 1996, includes convictions for domestic violence.

An alien charged with being deportable in an Arizona case was convicted of “misdemeanor assault / domestic violence”and of “misdemeanor Disorderly conduct / domestic violence”under state law. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) then sought his deportation, charging that the defendant was deportable under the domestic violence provision of INA §237(a)(2)(E)(i). This section defines a “crime of domestic violence”as any “crime of violence”committed against a person in one of several listed relationships with the perpetrator, e.g., a current or former spouse.

“Crime of violence,”in turn, is defined by another federal provision (18 U.S.C. §16): (a) an offense that has an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another, or (b) any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.

The respondent in the Arizona case argued that he could not be deported under the INA domestic violence ground for deportation because neither of his misdemeanor convictions met the federal statute’s definition of “crime of violence.”According to the Board of Immigration Appeals, the federal definition the classification described in the INA’s deportation provisions supersedes the state law definition to avoid inconsistent results for aliens similarly situated.

Specifically, in the Arizona case respondent argued that subpart (b) of the federal definition of “crime of violence”did not apply to his case because the offenses to which the defendant pleaded guilty were Misdemeanors, not felonies.

The respondent also argued that subpart (a) did not apply to him because the domestic violence provision required the “use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force”directed against a statutorily protected victim - elements not required for either of his misdemeanor State convictions.

Essentially, the Arizona domestic violence laws under which the respondent was convicted were broader in scope than the INA definition, because they could have allowed the prosecution of acts that did not involve attempted physical force or disorderly conduct directed to a victim. Evidence of misdemeanor domestic violence convictions under state law alone did not clearly and convincingly demonstrate that the respondent had actually committed the federally-defined domestic violence that renders a person deportable.

The Immigration Judge held that the INS failed to prove that the defendant actually committed domestic violence as defined by the INA (that is, he used or threatened physical force) in the incident for which he had been convicted under Arizona law. The judge thereafter terminated the defendant’s deportation proceedings and ordered immediate release from INS custody.

Misdemeanor Domestic Battery not a Crime of Violence, Flores v. Ashcroft, Seventh Circuit, November 2003

In Flores v. Ashcroft the Seventh Circuit held that a respondent
convicted under the Indiana Battery statute was not deportable for a
crime involving domestic violence because there was not a substantial
risk that the offense involved the use of force. November 26, 2003,
2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 24051

Download PDF case

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Petitioner sought review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) which ordered petitioner removed under § 237(a)(2)(E) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.S. § 1227(a)(2)(E), because he committed a "crime of domestic violence" under 18 U.S.C.S. § 16 and had a spouse or other domestic partner as a victim.

Petitioner pleaded guilty in Indiana to battery, a misdemeanor, defined as any touching in a rude, insolent, or angry manner. Ind. Code § 35--42--2--1. The BIA determined that this offense qualified as a "crime of domestic violence" under 18 U.S.C.S. § 16 and ordered petitioner removed under § 237(a)(2)(E). Upon review, the court of appeals found that the issue was how the offense created by Ind. Code § 35--42--2--1 should be classified for purposes of § 237(a)(2)(E). Although the police report shows that petitioner attacked and beat his wife, the court of appeals reasoned that § 16 provided that the statute's elements rather than the petitioner's real activities were dispositive in misdemeanor cases such that petitioner's conviction could not properly be classified as a crime of violence. Specifically, the court of appeals found that the elements of petitioner's battery conviction could not properly be viewed as a "crime of violence" under § 16 involving a spouse or other domestic partner as a victim, and thus concluded that petitioner was not removable under § 237(a)(2)(E).

The order of removal was vacated, and the matter is remanded to the BIA for further proceedings. 1(a)(1)(A).

________________

JOSE ERNESTO FLORES, Petitioner, v. JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.

No. 02-3160

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 24051

September 18, 2003, Argued November 26, 2003, Decided

PRIOR HISTORY: [*1] Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

DISPOSITION: Vacated and remanded.

JUDGES: Before EASTERBROOK, DIANE P. WOOD, and EVANS, Circuit Judges. EVANS, Circuit Judge, concurring.

OPINIONBY: EASTERBROOK

OPINION:

EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge.

Jose Ernesto Flores was ordered removed under § 237(a)(2)(E) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E), because he committed a "crime of domestic violence"- which means any offense that is a "crime of violence" under 18 U.S.C. § 16 and has a spouse or other domestic partner as a victim. The crime need not be defined in state law as "domestic"; all aspects of the definition are federal. But classification of a state crime under a federal definition can be tricky, and Flores denies that his offense qualifies. We have jurisdiction to determine whether Flores has committed a removable offense, see Gill v. Ashcroft, 335 F.3d 574 (7th Cir. 2003); Yang v. INS, 109 F.3d 1185, 1192 (7th Cir. 1997), but if he has done so then we lack jurisdiction to review any other issues. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C); Calcano-Martinez v. INS, 533 U.S. 348, 150 L. Ed. 2d 392, 121 S. Ct. 2268 (2001).


Flores pleaded guilty in Indiana to battery, a misdemeanor, which in that state is any touching in a rude, insolent, or angry manner. Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1. He received a one-year sentence because bodily injury ensued. Flores admitted at a removal hearing that the victim was his wife. Although he now contends that he was not given sufficient time before that admission to retain counsel, a removal proceeding is not a criminal prosecution, and the Constitution does not of its own force create a right to legal assistance at every stage. See Stroe v. INS, 256 F.3d 498 (7th Cir. 2001). The immigration judge's failure to grant Flores additional continuances before asking questions about the charges may have violated a regulation, but given § 1252(a)(2)(C) we lack authority to vindicate regulation-based arguments by criminal aliens. (Violation of a federal regulation differs from violation of the Constitution. See United States v. Caceres, 440 U.S. 741, 59 L. Ed. 2d 733, 99 S. Ct. 1465 (1979).) By the time the hearing proper arrived, Flores was represented by counsel, as he has been ever since. Lack of legal assistance earlier [*3] could matter only to the extent it affected the determination that he committed a crime of domestic battery- and that would be possible only if, with the assistance of counsel, Flores might have refused to make one of the concessions at the earlier, uncounseled proceedings: that (a) he is the "Jose Ernesto Flores " who pleaded guilty to the charge, and (b) the victim was his wife. Yet Flores has never (with or without counsel) denied either of these things. The issue at hand is entirely legal: how should the offense created by Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1 be classified for purposes of § 237(a)(2)(E)? It would be pointless to debate whether, some years ago, the immigration judge should have afforded Flores more time to hire a lawyer. We move to the main event.

Section 16 says that "The term 'crime of violence' means-(a) an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another, or (b) any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense. [*4] " Because the offense of which Flores was convicted is a misdemeanor, only § 16(a) matters. It is limited to crimes that have as an element the use of "physical force against the person ...of another". Indiana law provides: "(a) A person who knowingly or intentionally touches another person in a rude, insolent, or angry manner commits battery, a Class B misdemeanor. However, the offense is: (1) a Class A misdemeanor if: (A) it results in bodily injury to any other person". Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1. Flores pleaded guilty to this "Class A" version of the misdemeanor offense. The parties treat bodily injury as an "element" because it increases the maximum punishment. There are two other elements: an intentional touching, plus a rude, insolent, or angry manner. Rudeness has nothing to do with force (though it increases the offense given by the touching). But both touching and injury have a logical relation to the "use of physical force" under § 16(a).

Flores observes that Indiana does not require much of either touching or injury. Any contact counts as a "touch"- and this includes indirect as well as direct contact, so a snowball, spitball, or paper airplane [*5] qualifies if it hits the target. Indiana follows the common-law rule under which any contact, however slight, may constitute battery. Hamilton v. State, 237 Ind. 298, 145 N.E.2d 391 (1957); Seal v. State, 246 Ind. 353, 5 Ind. Dec. 451, 205 N.E.2d 823 (1965). Touching anything attached to someone else, such as the person's glasses, is treated the same as touching the body. Impson v. State, 721 N.E.2d 1275 (Ind. App. 2000). As for injury: a bruise suffices, as does any physical pain even without trauma. Lewis v. State, 438 N.E.2d 289 (Ind. 1982); Tucker v. State, 725 N.E.2d 894 (Ind. App. 2000). Indiana's courts reached this conclusion because "serious" bodily injury makes the offense a Class C felony. See Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1(a)(3). It follows, Indiana's judiciary concluded, that any physical hurt satisfies § 35-42-2-1(a)(1)(A). So if the paper airplane inflicts a paper cut, the snowball causes a yelp of pain, or a squeeze of the arm causes a bruise, the aggressor has committed a Class A misdemeanor (provided that the act was rude, angry, or insolent). It is hard to describe [*6] any of this as "violence."

Now Flores did not tickle his wife with a feather during a domestic quarrel, causing her to stumble and bruise her arm. That would not have led to a prosecution, let alone to a year's imprisonment. The police report shows that Flores attacked and beat his wife even though prior violence had led to an order barring him from having any contact with her. The contempt of court reflected in disobedience to this order, plus the ensuing injury, likely explains the prosecution and sentence. The immigration officials ask us to examine what Flores actually did, not just the elements of the crime to which he pleaded guilty. The problem with that approach lies in the language of § 16(a), which specifies that the offense of conviction must have "as an element" the use or threatened use of physical force. Section 16 adopts a charge-offense rather than a real-offense approach, as is common to recidivist statutes. See, e. g., Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575, 109 L. Ed. 2d 607, 110 S. Ct. 2143 (1990). As we explained in United States v. Howze, 343 F.3d 919 (7th Cir. 2003), it may be necessary even in charge-offense systems to rely [*7] on some aspects of the defendant's actual behavior, in order to know what he has been convicted of: when one state-law offense may be committed in multiple ways, and federal law draws a distinction, it is necessary to look behind the statutory definition. See also United States v. Shannon, 110 F.3d 382, 384-85 (7th Cir. 1997) (en banc). Howze was itself an example of this. State law defined, as a single felony, theft from either a living person or an embalmed body. The former is (we held) a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii) and the latter not, because only the former poses a risk of a violent encounter between thief and victim. So in Howze we examined the charging papers to learn that the victim had been alive. Indiana's battery statute, by contrast, separates into distinct subsections the different ways to commit the offense. Particularly forceful touchings, or those that cause grave injuries, come under subsections other than Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1(a)(1)(A). Thus it is possible to focus on "the elements" of that crime, as § 16(a) requires, without encountering any ambiguity, and thus without [*8] looking outside the statutory definition. See also Bazan-Reyes v. United States, 256 F.3d 600, 606-12 (7th Cir. 2001) (drunk driving is not a crime of violence under the elements approach of § 16, even if injury or death ensues).

Although § 16(a) directs attention to the statutory elements, § 237(a)(2)(E) of the immigration laws departs from that model by making the "domestic" ingredient a real-offense characteristic. Thus it does not matter for purposes of federal law that the crime of battery in Indiana is the same whether the victim is one's wife or a drinking buddy injured in a barroom. The injury to a "domestic partner" is a requirement based entirely on federal law and may be proved without regard to the elements of the state crime. See Sutherland v. Reno , 228 F.3d 171, 177-78 (2d Cir. 2000). Substantial evidence, independent of Flores's admission, shows that the victim was his wife. When classifying the state offense of battery for purposes of § 16(a), however, the inquiry begins and ends with the elements of the crime.

According to the immigration officials, we should grant Chevron deference to the Board's decision that Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1(a)(1)(A) [*9] satisfies the federal definition. An earlier decision reached this conclusion, after extended analysis, with respect to a Connecticut law similar to Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1(a)(1)(A), see Matter of Martin, 23 I.&N. Dec. 491 (B. I.A. 2002), and in Flores's case the Board relied on Martin. Yet Chevron deference depends on delegation, see United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218, 150 L. Ed. 2d 292, 121 S. Ct. 2164 (2001), and § 16(a) does not delegate any power to the immigration bureaucracy (formerly the Immigration and Naturalization Service, now the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services), or to the Board of Immigration Appeals. Section 16 is a criminal statute, and just as courts do not defer to the Attorney General or United States Attorney when § 16 must be interpreted in a criminal prosecution, so there is no reason for deference when the same statute must be construed in a removal proceeding. Any delegation of interpretive authority runs to the Judicial Branch rather than the Executive Branch. Cf. Adams Fruit Co. v. Barrett, 494 U.S. 638, 108 L. Ed. 2d 585, 110 S. Ct. 1384 (1990). One [*10] law has one meaning, and a given state conviction a single classification, whether the subject arises in removal or in a recidivist prosecution in federal court. Although the agency's interpretation in Martin may have persuasive force, and we must give it careful consideration, it has no binding effect along Chevron's lines.

Martin is not persuasive. Besides starting with legislative history rather than the text of § 16- the Board saw great significance in a footnote to the Senate Report, though this footnote did not purport to disambiguate any statutory language and thus lacks weight on the Supreme Court's view of legislative history's significance- the Board made two logical errors. It relied on decisions such as United States v. Nason, 269 F.3d 10 (1st Cir. 2001); United States v. Ceron-Sanchez, 222 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2000); and United States v. Smith, 171 F.3d 617 (8th Cir. 1999), which hold that state laws penalizing battery with intent to injure are crimes of violence under § 16 (or similar statutes, such as § 924(e)(2)). The Board concluded that this approach is equally applicable to laws such as Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1(a) (1)(A) [*11] . The first error is equating intent to cause injury (an element of the state laws at issue in those decisions) with any injury that happens to occur. It may well be that acts designed to injure deserve the appellation "violent" because the intent makes an actual injury more likely; it does not follow that accidental hurts should be treated the same way. Indiana's battery law does not make intent to injure an element of the offense; intent to touch must be established, but not intent to injure. The Board's second error was failure to appreciate the difference between felony and misdemeanor convictions. When the prior offense is a felony, then any criminal conduct that involves a "substantial risk" of physical force may be classified as a crime of violence under § 16(b) or § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii). (Howze involved a prior felony, which is why we looked to the risk of an altercation breaking out between thief and victim.) But when the conviction is for a misdemeanor, then physical force must be an element under § 16(a) or § 924(e)(2) (B)(i).

Section 16(a) refers to the "use of physical force". Every battery entails a touch, and it is impossible to touch someone without applying [*12] some force, if only a smidgeon. Does it follow that every battery comes within § 16(a)? No, it does not. Every battery involves "force" in the sense of physics or engineering, where "force" means the acceleration of mass. A dyne is the amount of force needed to accelerate one gram of mass by one centimeter per second per second. That's a tiny amount; a paper airplane conveys more. (A newton, the amount of force needed to accelerate a kilogram by one meter per second per second, is 100,000 dynes, and a good punch packs a passel of newtons.) Perhaps one could read the word "force" in § 16(a) to mean one dyne or more, but that would make hash of the effort to distinguish ordinary crimes from violent ones. How is it possible to commit any offense without applying a dyne of force? Section 16(a) speaks of "physical force against the person or property of another" (emphasis added). Cashing a check obtained by embezzlement requires lots of dynes to move the check into an envelope for mailing. Suppose someone finds a set of keys that the owner dropped next to his car and, instead of taking them to a lost and found, turns the key in the lock and drives away. One would suppose [*13] that to be a paradigm non-violent offense, yet turning the key in the lock requires "physical force" (oodles of dynes) directed against the property (the auto) of another.

To avoid collapsing the distinction between violent and non-violent offenses, we must treat the word "force" as having a meaning in the legal community that differs from its meaning in the physics community. The way to do this is to insist that the force be violent in nature- the sort that is intended to cause bodily injury, or at a minimum likely to do so. We have already drawn just that line. See Solorzano-Patlan v. INS, 207 F.3d 869, 875 n. 10 (7th Cir. 2000); Xiong v. INS, 173 F.3d 601, 604-05 (7th Cir. 1999). Otherwise "physical force against" and "physical contact with" would end up meaning the same thing, even though these senses are distinct in law. This is not a quantitative line ("how many newtons makes a touching violent?") but a qualitative one. An offensive touching is on the "contact" side of this line, a punch on the "force" side; and even though we know that Flores's acts were on the "force" side of this legal line, the elements of his offense are on the [*14] "contact" side. Because § 16(a) tells us that the elements rather than the real activities are dispositive in misdemeanor cases, this conviction cannot properly be classified as a crime of violence, and the basis for Flores's removal has been knocked out- along with any obstacle to our jurisdiction.

The order of removal is vacated, and the matter is remanded to the Board.

CONCURBY: EVANS

CONCUR: EVANS, Circuit Judge, concurring. Although it's debatable whether expending dynes (to say nothing about newtons) pressing the keys of my wordprocessor to concur in this case is worth the effort, I do so because the result we reach, though correct on the law, is divorced from common sense. For one thing, people don't get charged criminally for expending a newton of force against victims. Flores actually beat his wife- after violating a restraining order based on at least one prior beating- and got a one-year prison sentence for doing so.

If it is permissible to look to Flores' "real conduct" to determine if the person he beat was his wife rather than some stranger, why does it not make perfectly good sense to allow an immigration judge to look at what he really did in other respects as well, rather [*15] than restrict the judge to a cramped glance at the "elements" of a cold statute? The more information upon which the judge acts, the better. A common-sense review here should lead one to conclude that Flores committed a "crime of domestic violence." Simply put, by any commonly understood meaning of that term, that's exactly what he did, and that should be the end of the story. We, and the IJ as well in this case, should be able to look at what really happened. We recently observed that critics of our system of law often see it as "not tethered very closely to common sense." United States v. Cranley, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 23573, (2003 WL 22718171, decided November 19, 2003). This case is a good example of why that observation hits the nail on the head. Nevertheless, Judge Easterbrook is correct in applying the law so I join his persuasive (as usual) and colorful- snowballs, spitballs, and paper airplanes et al.- opinion. However, I do not applaud the result we reach. And one final point: Whether doing what Flores actually did should cause him to be removed from the country is a question we are without jurisdiction to answer. For better or worse, that's a matter for the executive branch as [*16] it attempts to implement the will of Congress.

http://callyourlawyers.com/pdfcaselaw/flores_v_ashcroft_7th.pdf