U.S. Moral Turpitude Criminal Misconduct Deportation Lawyers Attorneys

U.S. Moral Turpitude Criminal Misconduct Deportation Lawyers Attorneys

by

Atchuthan Sriskandarajah

PETER FRAMPTON AKINDEMOWO, Petitioner, v. U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

June 8, 1995, Argued

August 10, 1995, Decided

Facts:

Akindemowo is a native and citizen of Nigeria who entered the United States as an immigrant, he planned to travel to Nigeria, and in connection with his proposed journey, he prepared a list of goods he intended to take with him: he knowingly tendered fraudulent checks on a closed bank account bearing the name of one of his aliases and used these checks to acquire the goods. On or about October 21, 1987, Akindemowo went to the Spottsylvania Shopping Mall to begin carrying out his criminal activity. Akindemowo’s check, failed to clear, and, while attempting to depart from Best Jewelry Store, he was arrested. Subsequently, Akindemowo was convicted of grand larceny by false pretenses for tendering a fraudulent check to Nichols Department Store, and of attempted grand larceny by false pretenses for attempting to tender another fraudulent check to Best Jewelry Store. He was convicted of grand larceny and attempted grand larceny in Virginia and a show cause order was issued by appellee. Appellant was ordered deported under 8 U.S.C.S. 1251(a)(2)(A)(ii) as an alien who had committed two separate crimes of moral turpitude not arising out of a single scheme of criminal misconduct; the board affirmed. Appellant petitioned for review.

Issues:

Whether there was an err in appellant deportation order by BIA, pursuant to 8 U.S.C.S. 1251(a)(2)(A)(ii)?

Whether the appellant crimes arose from a single scheme of

criminal misconduct

?

Discussion:

The courts have recognized that neither 1251(a)(2)(A)(ii) nor its legislative history sheds light on what constitutes a “single scheme of criminal misconduct” for purposes of deporting aliens, thereby finding the statutory language ambiguous. Appellant was convicted of two separate offenses; there were separate victims; appellant had the opportunity to reflect upon one crime before committing the other, yet he elected not to disassociate himself from his criminal misconduct; and while the crimes occurred at the same mall within a short timeframe, appellant tendered two separate checks, and the two separate instances were removed in time. The court denied the petition for review and affirmed the deportation order in deference to the agency’s interpretation of the statute.

Disclaimer:These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm s unofficial views of the Justices opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content

Atchuthan Sriskandarajah is a Virginia lawyer and owner of the SRIS Law Group. The SRIS Law Group has offices in

Virginia

, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina & California. The firm handles criminal/traffic defense, family law, immigration & bankruptcy cases.

Article Source:

ArticleRich.com