USCA11 Case: 21-11096 Date Filed: 12/15/2021 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 21-11096 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ JIGNESHKUMAR RAMANBAHAI PATEL, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ____________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A093-461-235 ____________________ USCA11 Case: 21-11096 Date Filed: 12/15/2021 Page: 2 of 3 2 Opinion of the Court 21-11096 Before WILSON, NEWSOM, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Jigneshkumar Ramanbahai Patel, a native and citizen of In- dia present in the United States without being admitted or paroled, was convicted under Georgia’s RICO statute of offering multiple bootleg DVDs for sale in violation of O.C.G.A. § 16-8-60. Follow- ing his conviction, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against Patel, alleging that he was subject to removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I), which renders inad- missible any alien convicted of “a crime involving moral turpitude” (CIMT). An immigration judge denied Patel’s application for can- cellation of removal, reasoning that he committed a CIMT because his offense required knowingly selling illicit copyrighted material. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the IJ’s decision. Be- fore us, Patel contends that his conviction lacked the level of scien- ter required for a CIMT. 1 “Whether a crime involves the depravity or fraud necessary to be one of moral turpitude depends upon the inherent nature of the offense, as defined in the relevant statute, rather than the cir- cumstances surrounding a defendant’s particular conduct.” Itani v. Ashcroft, 298 F.3d 1213, 1215–16 (11th Cir. 2002) (per curiam). “Generally, a crime involving dishonesty or false statement is 1Whether a conviction constitutes a CIMT is a legal question that we review de novo. Gelin v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 837 F.3d 1236, 1240 (11th Cir. 2016). USCA11 Case: 21-11096 Date Filed: 12/15/2021 Page: 3 of 3 21-11096 Opinion of the Court 3 considered to be one involving moral turpitude.” Id. at 1215 (quo- tation omitted). “If a conviction requires that a defendant acted knowingly or intentionally, the statute requires a sufficiently cul- pable mental state to constitute a CIMT.” Pierre v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 879 F.3d 1241, 1251 (11th Cir. 2018) (quotation marks omitted). The specific Georgia provision that Patel violated makes it unlawful for a person to “knowingly . . . offer for sale . . . any article or device on which sounds or visual images have been transferred, knowing it to have been made without the consent of the person who owns the master . . . device or article from which the sounds or visual images are derived.” O.C.G.A. § 16-8-60(a)(2) (emphases added). Because this crime involves dishonesty and requires that the offender act knowingly, it qualifies as a CIMT. Accordingly, the BIA didn’t err in determining that Patel had been convicted of a CIMT and upholding the denial of his application for cancellation of removal. PETITION DENIED. 21-11096 Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ca11 11th Cir. Jigneshkumar Ramanbahai …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals