BIA on CIMT: Matter of Thakker

Matter of Thakker, 28 I&N Dec. 843 (BIA 2024)

(1) The assumption in Matter of Jurado that a retail theft offense involves an intent to permanently deprive a victim of their property is inconsistent with the categorical approach as currently articulated by the Supreme Court. Matter of Jurado, 24 I&N Dec. 29 (BIA 2006), aff’d sub. nom. Jurado-Delgado v. Att’y Gen. of U.S., 498 F. App’x 107 (3d Cir. 2009), overruled in part.

(2) The respondent’s convictions for retail theft under section 3929(a)(1) of title 18 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, all of which predate the Board’s decision in Matter of Diaz-Lizarraga, 26 I&N Dec. 847 (BIA 2016), are categorically not for crimes involving moral turpitude because the statute does not require an intent to permanently deprive the victim of property.

"This case is before the Board pursuant to a remand from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Thakker v. Att’y Gen. U.S., 837 F. App’x 75 (3d Cir. 2020). The court directed the Board to reconsider whether the respondent’s convictions for retail theft under section 3929(a)(1) of title 18 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes are for crimes involving moral turpitude. Id. at 80–81. This requires us to reexamine our decision in Matter of Jurado, 24 I&N Dec. 29 (BIA 2006), aff’d sub. nom. Jurado-Delgado v. Att’y Gen. of U.S., 498 F. App’x 107 (3d Cir. 2009). We conclude that Matter of Jurado must be overruled in part and that the respondent is not removable as charged. Accordingly, the respondent’s appeal will be sustained, and the removal proceedings will be terminated."

[Hats off to Christopher R. Healy!]