CASES FROM THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS
In re Lopez-Mesa In this case the Board found that Lopez’ conviction in Arizona for aggravated driving under the influence was a crime involving moral turpitude rendering him removable from the US. Lopez, a citizen of Mexico and permanent resident since 1989, was convicted in 1998 in Arizona on two counts of aggravated driving while under the influence (DUI). The INS initiated removal proceedings, alleging that his convictions were for crimes involving moral turpitude. The phrase “crime involving moral turpitude” has a long history, but has never been precisely defined. It is generally understood to refer to behavior and acts that are contrary to accepted social standards, and because of this whether an act is a crime involving moral turpitude “is measured against contemporary moral standards and may be susceptible to change based on the prevailing views in society.” Also, while a crime involving moral turpitude often involves bad intentions, it is not necessary that the statute under which the person was convicted require proof of specific intent to do bad. However, it is necessary that the statute clearly define a crime involving moral turpitude without the need to make reference to the individual circumstances of the offense. The Board found that a simple DUI under Arizona law was not a crime involving moral turpitude, but Lopez’ convictions were not for simple DUIs. Lopez was convicted of aggravated DUI, in this case defined by statute as DUIs committed while the person’s driver’s license was suspended, revoked or restricted because of a prior DUI conviction. According to the Board, “the serious misconduct described in these statutes involves a baseness so contrary to accepted moral standards that it rises to the level of a crime involving moral turpitude.” This was so not because of the combination of offenses of driving without a license and the DUI, but because committing a DUI when the person knows that they are prohibited from driving is “such a deviance from the accepted rules of contemporary morality that it amounts to a crime involving moral turpitude.” 
|