On the other hand, damaging private property has been held NOT to involve moral turpitude where evil intent is not an essential element of the offense. § 1992 is an offense involving moral turpitude, since criminal intent is an essential element of the offense).

461 (BIA 1951) (conviction of attempt to wreck a train operated in interstate commerce in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 502 (now see § 2275) is an offense which involves moral turpitude). 409 (BIA 1951) (conviction of tampering with motive power of vessel, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 469 (BIA 1946) (conviction of malicious mischief in violation of New York Penal Law § 1433 is not a crime involving moral turpitude, where the statute is so broad as to include offenses which do and offenses which do not involve moral turpitude, and the record of conviction fails to show with sufficient particularity what offense was actually committed). 629 (BIA 1946) (federal conviction of willful destruction or injury to war materials in wartime, in violation of 50 U.S.C. 272 (BIA 1948) (maliciously and wantonly injuring and destroying personal property of another, to wit, two hogs, by stabbing, striking, and killing them with an axe, in violation of Article 6, § 23-576, Volume 3, Oregon Penal Code is an offense involving moral turpitude) 409 (BIA 1951) (tampering with vessel’s engine, with intent to injure and endanger the safety of the vessel, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

461 (BIA 1951) (attempt to wreck train, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 659 (BIA 1979) (since conviction of malicious trespass under Florida Statutes § 821.18 required a finding of an intent to commit petit larceny, which is a crime involving moral turpitude, the trespass conviction is a CMT) 1954) (conviction for violation of anti-racketeering law) 1985) (conviction of malicious destruction of property held a crime of moral turpitude: “While we do not announce a per se rule that equates every incident of property destruction with moral turpitude, we believe the BIA to be properly within its discretion in finding that Hernandez failed this requirement”) Ĭircella v. Malicious destruction of property has been held to involve moral turpitude.

Malicious mischief 3