The 5^th Circuit recently decided the case of Amouzadeh v. Winfrey, in which the court held that "unlawful procurement of naturalization, in violation of 18 USC §1425(a), is a crime involving moral turpitude." 

The petitioner, then a lawful permanent resident, was apprehended on charges of conspiracy to possess cocaine with the intent to distribute.  The arrest occurred just two weeks prior to his final naturalization interview.  At the interview, the petitioner was questioned about his criminal history.  Under oath, he falsely stated that he had only been cited for a traffic violation.  The petitioner was granted U.S citizenship in September 1995, and was convicted of conspiracy charges approximately one year later.  Subsequently, the petitioner was convicted of unlawful procurement of naturalization in violation of 18 USC §1425(a) and in March 2001, his U.S. citizenship was revoked.  The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the court’s decision, and the petitioner was removed to Iran .

Petitioner Amouzadeh, a native of Iran , filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, challenging the removal order, and was denied by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas.  The judge rejected Amouzadeh’s argument that his §1425(a) conviction was not a crime involving moral turpitude and denied relief.

The court began by explaining that the BIA has held that "moral turpitude," generally refers "to conduct that shocks the public conscience as being inherently base, vile or depraved, and contrary to the accepted rules of morality and the duties owed between persons or to society in general." Hamdan v. INS.  The court reasoned that under §1425(a), a conviction under this statute can only be classified as a crime involving moral turpitude if every violation, under all circumstances, necessarily involves moral turpitude.

In line with a similar Ninth Circuit decision ( U.S. v. Pasillas-Gaytan), the court held that in order to sustain a conviction under 18 USC §1425(a), the government must prove that the defendant acted with a culpable state of mind.  Because the defendant must be cognizant of his or her ineligibility for naturalization when they misrepresent facts or present false documents to the government, the court held that §1425(a) can only encompass behavior that is considered morally turpitudinous.