Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
In the Matter of H

3 Citing cases

  1. Franklin v. I.N.S.

    72 F.3d 571 (8th Cir. 1995)   Cited 34 times
    Upholding BIA determination that involuntary man-slaughter, where alien "recklessly cause[d] the death of her child by consciously disregarding a substantial and unjustifiable risk to life," is a crime involving moral turpitude

    See, e.g., Gonzalez-Alvarado v. INS, 39 F.3d 245, 246 n. 2 (9th Cir. 1994); Cabral, 15 F.3d at 196 n. 5 (citing In re H, 7 I. N. Dec. 359, 360 (BIA 1956)). A. "Reasonableness" Or "De Novo" Review?

  2. Cabral v. I.N.S.

    15 F.3d 193 (1st Cir. 1994)   Cited 31 times
    Holding that an alien convicted of accessory after the fact to murder committed a crime involving moral turpitude because he intentionally assisted the principal in evading authorities

    We look to state law only to determine the elements of the offense of conviction. See In re H, 7 I. N. Dec. 359, 360 (BIA 1956).

  3. Toutounjian v. I.N.S.

    959 F. Supp. 598 (W.D.N.Y. 1997)   Cited 9 times
    Recognizing that "sexual or physical abuse of women or children has been almost uniformly found to involve a crime of moral turpitude"

    In Matter of Z, 2 I. N. Dec. 316 (BIA 1945), the Board held that it could not conclude that petitioner was convicted of a crime of moral turpitude in Canada, where the record of petitioner's conviction for "gross indecency" did not specify the act for which he was convicted. But in Matter of H, 7 I. N. Dec. 359, 360-61 (BIA 1956), the petitioner was convicted of homosexual conduct in Canada under a "gross indecency" statute. The BIA was at first "unable to conclude" that petitioner had been convicted of a crime of moral turpitude because the term gross indecency was not defined in the statute and the record of conviction contained no facts.