Immigration Law

AAO CIMT/Waiver Victory: London

"[W]e acknowledge that the term "moral turpitude" is not in common usage, and it is unlikely that the average person is aware of its meaning and application in U.S. immigration law.  In this case, the applicant did not disclose his conviction when asked about crimes involving moral turpitude, but did disclose his convictions when asked on his immigrant visa application about being charged, arrested, or convicted of any offense or crime. The applicant indicates that he has no education beyond the age of 16 years old and he misunderstood the question in regards to a "crime of moral turpitude".  Given that the term "moral turpitude" is not in common usage together with the fact that the applicant did disclose his criminal convictions when asked the more general question regarding arrests and/or convictions, we find that the applicant did not make a willful misrepresentation on his 1-94Ws or his DS-230. Thus, the AAO finds that the applicant is not inadmissible under Sec. 212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the Act. ... The adverse factor in the present case is the applicant's 1991 convictions for theft and attempted theft.  The favorable factors in the present case are the hardship to the applicant's U.S. citizen spouse if he is not granted a waiver of inadmissibility; the lack of a criminal record or offense since 1991; the applicant's record of employment with the same employer for the last 11 years; and, as stated in numerous letters in the record, the applicant's attributes as an honest and hard-working person.  The AAO finds that the crimes committed by the applicant are serious in nature and cannot be condoned.  Nevertheless, the AAO finds that taken together, the favorable factors in the present case outweigh the adverse factors, such that a favorable exercise of discretion is warranted.  Accordingly. the appeal will be sustained." - Matter of X-, April 30, 2013.  [Hats off to Steven D. Heller!]