Ninth Circuit Finds that Nevada Conviction for Making a False Statement in an Application for a Driver's License is not a CIMT

In an unpublished decision, the Ninth Circuit determined that a Nevada conviction for making a false statement in an application for a driver's license is not categorically a crime involving moral turpitude because it it criminalizes conduct that is not inherently fraudulent.  "There are myriad ways a defendant could commit the felony described in § 483.530(2) without intending to defraud. For instance, the provision expressly makes it a felony knowingly to make a false statement in a driver’s license application. Knowing misrepresentation alone, however, is not intent to defraud. Only facts that go to the identity of the applicant—such as name or Social Security number—would be material to the issuance of a license such that the misrepresentation was necessarily done with the intent to procure the license.  An applicant might falsify certain personal identifying information without intending that these misrepresentations result in procurement of the identification, as those false statements would have no effect on whether the license would issue."

The full text of Lopez-Hurtado v. Sessions can be found here:

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2017/08/09/14-72744.pdf

Supreme Court Rules that Non-Material False Statements can not be used to Denaturalize Someone

The Supreme Court has issued a decision construing when a person procures naturalization in a manner contrary to law.  Specifically, the Court held that the false statement must have some causal connection to the approval of the naturalization application.  "The statute it passed, most naturally read, strips a person of citizenship not when she committed any illegal act during the naturalization process, but only when that act played some role in her naturalization."  

"If the facts the defendant misrepresented are themselves disqualifying, the jury can make quick work of that inquiry. In such a case, there is an obvious causal link between the defendant’s lie and her procurement of citizenship. To take an example: An applicant for citizenship must be physically present in the United States for more than half of the five-year period preceding her application."  

"But that is not the only time a jury can find that a defendant’s lie had the requisite bearing on a naturalization decision. For even if the true facts lying behind a false statement would not in and of themselves justify denial of citizenship, they could have led to the discovery of other facts which would do so . . .  a person whose lies throw investigators off a trail leading to disqualifying facts gets her citizenship by means of those lies—no less than if she had denied the damning facts at the very end of the trail."

"When relying on such an investigation-based theory, the Government must make a two-part showing to meet its burden. As an initial matter, the Government has to prove that the misrepresented fact was sufficiently relevant to one or another naturalization criterion that it would have prompted reasonable officials, seeking only evidence concerning citizenship qualifications, to undertake further investigation.  If that much is true, the inquiry turns to the prospect that such an investigation would have borne disqualifying fruit. As to that second link in the causal chain, the Government need not show definitively that its investigation would have unearthed a disqualifying fact (though, of course, it may). Rather, the Government need only establish that the investigation would predictably have disclosed some legal disqualification. If that is so, the defendant’s misrepresentation contributed to the citizenship award in the way we think § 1425(a) requires."

The full text of Maslenjak v. United States can be found here: 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-309_h31i.pdf

Tenth Circuit Finds that CO Conviction for Giving False Information to a Police Officer or City Employee is not a CIMT

The Tenth Circuit has determined that a Colorado conviction for giving false information to a police officer or city employee is not a crime involving moral turpitude.  The court noted that fraud is not an explicit element of the offense, nor is there an implicit element of fraudulent intent in the statute because the commission of the crime does not necessarily entail fraud.  There is no requirement that the false statement be material or be given with the intent to mislead the city official, to disrupt the official’s investigation, or to otherwise cause any harm or obtain any benefit.  In sum, "[f]or a false statement to violate DMC § 38-40, it need not involve fraud, cause harm to the government or anyone else, obtain a benefit for the speaker, or be given with the intent to achieve any of these ends."  

The full text of Flores-Molina v. Sessions can be found here:

https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/16/16-9516.pdf