Subjectivity of the Phrase “Moral Turpitude” Helps Win a Case
Licensed to practice law in New York and Connecticut, attorney Christopher Stender handles cases related to immigration. Attorney Christopher Stender has appeared in front of the Board of Immigration Appeals and the US Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, where he represented Armando Marmolejo-Campos in his case against the attorney general.
Also known as Campos Ramos Armando, Mr. Marmolejo-Campos filed a petition to appeal a decision of his removal from the United States following multiple violations of the driving under the influence (DUI) law. A native and citizen of Mexico, Mr. Marmolejo-Campos entered the United States without an inspection in 1983 and later gained lawful permanent resident status in 2001. However, during the span of less than 10 years, he committed both crimes, one of which involved driving with a suspended or revoked license knowingly. Based on the timeframe, charges, and citizenship status, he faced deportation for crimes involving moral turpitude.
Mr. Marmolejo-Campos and his attorney Mr. Stender convinced the judge overseeing the proceeding to remand the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision and dissent. The case aiding in their argument was Lopez-Meza v. The Board. It indicated variances of how the phrase “moral turpitude” is interpreted. Because no exact explanation that can eliminate subjectivity is given, Mr. Marmolejo-Campos achieved a favorable outcome.