9th Circuit Court of Appeals rules that receipt of stolen property is not a crime involving moral turpitude.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on September 17, 2009 in Castillo-Cruz v. Holder reversed an Immigration Judge's finding that receipt of stolen property is a crime of moral turpitude, and questioned whether a petty theft conviction may fall within the petty offense exception.

The Court remanded the case back to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) for the BIA to determine if Castillo-Cruz’s petty theft conviction falls within the petty offenses exception, at 8 U.S.C.§ 1182(a)(2)(A)(ii)(II), and so that it may determine if these convictions standing alone preclude an individual from accruing the requisite time period necessary to establish eligibility for cancellation of removal.

"We affirm the IJ’s determination that Castillo-Cruz’s conviction for petty theft constituted a crime of moral turpitude, but reverse with respect to the receipt of stolen property determination. We further reverse with respect to the IJ’s good moral character determination. Castillo-Cruz’s single conviction for petty theft may fall within the petty offenses exception, see 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(ii)(II). If it does, Castillo-Cruz would not be subject to the “stop time” rule of 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1) precluding him from establishing the requisite period of continuous presence. We therefore remand to the BIA so that it may decide in the first instance whether the petty theft conviction falls within the petty offenses exception, see 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(ii)(II), and so that it may resolve any other issues that may exist regarding Castillo-Cruz’s application for cancellation of removal."

Click here to read the Court's decision in its entirety.