The panel majority held term “crime involving moral turpitude” in the Immigration and naturalization Act provisions allowing removal of a legal permanent resident is unambiguous; the majority joined three other circuits in so holding; Immigration judges and the Board of immigration Appeals must follow the Taylor and Sheppard approach of categorical analysis fop the criminal statute and using certain court documents as the sole means of determining whether the offense is a crime of moral turpitude. In this case, a sex based contribution to the delinquency of a minor did not satisfy the standard on a categorical or modified categorical analysis. Removal was vacated allowing Prudencio to remain in the country.
The panel held that law enforcement had probably cause to suspect an independent photojournalist of criminal conduct when she appeared at three antigovernment rallies dressed similarly to protestors who committed acts of violence. Thus, the journalist had no claim under the Privacy Protection Act.
