INA 212a2AiI (INA 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I)) — Crime Involving Moral Turpitude (CIMT)

Whether an offense is a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT) depends on the specific statute, its elements, and the record of conviction—not just the offense label. That said, the following categories are commonly analyzed as CIMTs:

• Theft offenses involving intent to permanently deprive (or similar intent elements), including certain shoplifting/theft statutes
• Fraud and deceit offenses (false statements, schemes to obtain a benefit through deception, wire/mail fraud-type conduct)
• Forgery, uttering, counterfeit-related offenses where intent to defraud is an element
• Identity theft or impersonation offenses involving deceit or intent to defraud
• Check fraud and related financial deception offenses
• Credit card fraud and access device fraud offenses
• Insurance, benefits, or immigration-related fraud offenses
• Perjury and false swearing offenses (and certain obstruction offenses where deceit is an element)
• Bribery offenses and corruption-type crimes involving dishonest intent
• Certain assault or battery offenses that require intent to cause serious bodily harm (or other aggravated intent elements)
• Certain domestic violence-related offenses depending on the statutory elements and intent requirement
• Child abuse or child endangerment offenses in some jurisdictions (highly statute-specific)
• Certain sex offenses depending on the statutory elements
• Certain burglary offenses where the statute requires intent to commit a CIMT inside (statute-specific)
• Certain drug paraphernalia / controlled substance offenses are often analyzed under different grounds, but some may still raise CIMT arguments depending on the exact statute and record

Important: many people search “Is DUI a CIMT?” Many simple DUI offenses are not treated as CIMTs, but the analysis can change with aggravating factors (for example, driving on a suspended license, injury, child endangerment, or other intent-based components) and the specific statutory elements.

Also, “CIMT” outcomes can differ across states because statutes are written differently. The correct approach is to analyze the exact statute of conviction (or charge), the disposition, the record of conviction (charging document, plea, judgment), and the sentence to determine CIMT consequences and whether the petty offense exception, juvenile exception, or a waiver may apply.

Another important exception is the “juvenile exception,” which can apply when the CIMT conduct occurred while the person was under 18 and enough time has passed before the person applies for a visa or admission.

In general terms, the juvenile exception may apply where:

• The person committed only one CIMT; and
• The CIMT was committed while the person was under 18 years old; and
• The person was released from any resulting confinement (if any) more than five years before applying for a visa or admission.

This analysis is highly fact-specific and depends on the age at the time of the offense, the case disposition, and the timing of the application. Certified records and a clear timeline matter.

Not every CIMT makes a person inadmissible. A common exception is the “petty offense exception,” which may apply when there is only one CIMT and the offense is minor enough under the statutory criteria.

In general terms, the petty offense exception may apply where:

• The person committed only one CIMT; and
• The maximum possible penalty for the offense does not exceed one year; and
• The person was not sentenced to more than six months of imprisonment (regardless of how much time was actually served).

Whether the petty offense exception applies depends on the exact statute of conviction, the maximum possible penalty under that statute, and the actual sentence imposed. A careful analysis of the criminal statute and certified court records is critical.

In some cases, a person who is inadmissible for a CIMT under INA 212a2AiI may seek a waiver under INA 212(h). Whether 212(h) is available depends on the person’s immigration posture, criminal history, and statutory eligibility requirements.

In general, 212(h) waiver cases are typically built around:

• Proving statutory eligibility (including any required qualifying relative or other eligibility pathway, depending on the case)
• Demonstrating rehabilitation and positive discretionary factors
• Presenting hardship evidence where the statute requires it
• Showing that the applicant merits a favorable exercise of discretion

Because 212(h) is fact-specific and can be limited by criminal history and other factors, the first step is a careful review of the statute of conviction, the sentence, and the person’s full immigration history.