INA §237(a)(2)(A)(ii): Multiple Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude

INA §237(a)(2)(A)(ii) makes an admitted noncitizen deportable when the person has been convicted after admission of two or more crimes involving moral turpitude that do not arise out of a single scheme of criminal misconduct. The statute expressly applies regardless of whether the person was confined for the offenses and regardless of whether the convictions occurred in a single trial.

The government therefore must establish at least two immigration convictions, establish that each required conviction is for a crime involving moral turpitude, and establish that the crimes did not arise from a single scheme. Each part of the charge should be analyzed separately. The fact that a criminal history contains two entries does not by itself establish this deportability ground.

Unlike INA §237(a)(2)(A)(i), the multiple CIMT provision does not require the offenses to have been committed within five years after admission. Section 237(a)(2)(A)(ii) applies to qualifying convictions at any time after admission. This difference can be decisive for a long term lawful permanent resident whose criminal conduct occurred many years after entering the United States.

A respondent may therefore defeat a single CIMT charge because the offense was committed outside the statutory five year period while still facing a multiple CIMT charge based on two separate qualifying convictions. The two provisions should never be treated as interchangeable.

The first question is whether the record actually contains two convictions within the federal immigration definition in INA §101(a)(48)(A). Arrests, dismissed charges, acquittals, juvenile adjudications, and some diversion programs may not qualify. Other deferred adjudications can count even when state law does not label the disposition a conviction.

Obtain certified records for every alleged predicate. The judgment should be reviewed together with plea records, the charging document, sentence, and any later court order. Do not count entries from an FBI record, state rap sheet, online docket, or background report without confirming the final criminal disposition.

DHS must establish the moral turpitude character of the convictions necessary to sustain the charge. Two offenses with similar names may have different statutory elements, and one conviction may qualify while another does not. The analysis should therefore be performed separately for each predicate offense.

For each conviction, identify the statute and subsection, the version in effect at the relevant time, the minimum conduct criminalized, the required mental state, and any controlling federal circuit authority. A multiple CIMT charge can fail if even one necessary predicate does not qualify.

Matter of Silva Trevino, 26 I&N Dec. 826 (BIA 2016), confirms that CIMT conviction analysis generally follows the categorical and modified categorical approaches. The first question is whether the elements of the criminal statute necessarily involve moral turpitude, not whether police reports describe morally objectionable conduct.

If a statute reaches both turpitudinous and non turpitudinous conduct, determine whether it is divisible into alternative crimes. Only when the governing categorical rules permit it should the adjudicator consult the limited record of conviction to identify the statutory alternative that formed the basis for conviction.

Even when two convictions are CIMTs, §237(a)(2)(A)(ii) does not apply if the crimes arose out of a single scheme of criminal misconduct. The phrase has generated substantial litigation because several criminal acts can occur close together yet still constitute separate schemes for immigration purposes.

The analysis focuses on the relationship between the criminal acts. Timing is important, but timing alone does not decide the issue. The court must determine whether the crimes were separate and distinct acts or instead were part of the limited category of conduct recognized as one criminal scheme under governing precedent.

Matter of Baeza-Galindo, 29 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 2025), is the Board's most recent major precedential decision interpreting the single scheme language. The Board held that proximity in time is necessary but is not sufficient by itself to establish that two crimes arose from a single scheme of criminal misconduct.

The Board further explained that two CIMTs based on separate turpitudinous acts with different objectives, where neither crime was committed in the course of accomplishing the other, constitute separate schemes. The decision should be reviewed directly in any current case because it clarifies and applies the earlier Adetiba line of precedent.

Matter of Adetiba, 20 I&N Dec. 506 (BIA 1992), states the Board's historical approach. When a person completes an act that itself constitutes a complete, individual, and distinct crime and then commits another such act, the offenses generally are separate even if they occur close together, are similar, and were contemplated as part of an overall criminal plan.

Adetiba distinguishes that situation from cases involving separate offenses flowing from a single criminal episode, including circumstances in which one offense is a lesser offense of another or the crimes are natural consequences of one criminal act. Baeza-Galindo clarifies this framework for current cases.

Matter of Islam, 25 I&N Dec. 637 (BIA 2011), involved the use of multiple stolen credit or debit cards at several retail outlets on five separate occasions during one day. The Board held that the crimes did not arise out of a single scheme of criminal misconduct.

Islam demonstrates why a shared plan, similar method, or short period of time does not automatically create one scheme. Each completed criminal act must be examined to determine whether the actor had completed one distinct offense before undertaking another.

The Board's precedent recognizes limited situations in which multiple offenses can arise from one scheme. Examples discussed in Baeza-Galindo include offenses in which one crime constitutes a lesser offense of another, multiple victims are harmed concurrently by a single act, or a series of closely connected acts involving the same parties occurs to accomplish one specific criminal objective.

The important question is not simply how many counts were charged. One criminal episode can generate several statutory violations, while a common overall plan can generate several separate schemes. The defense should reconstruct what actually occurred between one criminal act and the next.

Baeza-Galindo emphasizes whether the turpitudinous acts had different objectives and whether one was committed in the course of accomplishing the other. Separate objectives can support a finding of separate schemes even when the offenses occurred close together.

Develop the facts relevant to objective, victim, location, property, sequence, opportunity for reflection, and whether the first offense was complete before the next began. These facts should be drawn from reliable criminal records and admissible evidence rather than assumptions based solely on the number of case numbers.

The statute expressly states that deportability can apply regardless of whether the convictions occurred in a single trial. Prosecutorial joinder, one plea hearing, one judgment date, or concurrent sentencing therefore does not establish that the underlying crimes arose from a single scheme.

The reverse is also true. Separate case numbers or separate judgment dates do not necessarily prove separate schemes. The analysis concerns the underlying criminal misconduct, not merely the administrative manner in which the criminal court processed the charges.

Section 237(a)(2)(A)(ii) expressly applies regardless of whether the person was confined for the convictions. A fine, probation, suspended sentence, conditional discharge, or other noncustodial punishment does not by itself prevent the multiple CIMT ground from applying.

Sentencing records remain important for other reasons. They can affect aggravated felony analysis, relief, good moral character, detention questions, rehabilitation evidence, and discretion. The absence of jail therefore should not cause the defense to omit sentencing records from the file.

The statutory text applies when a person at any time after admission is convicted of two or more qualifying CIMTs. This is different from the detailed five year offense timing rule in the single CIMT provision, but admission history still must be established accurately.

Obtain the person's complete entry, admission, adjustment, and travel history. Complex cases can involve entries without inspection, parole, adjustment after entry, multiple lawful admissions, or prior removal proceedings. The exact procedural posture can affect both removability and relief.

For each alleged CIMT, obtain the certified charging document, plea agreement or plea transcript, judgment, sentencing order, verdict where applicable, jury instructions where relevant, and all post conviction orders. Also obtain the statute and sentencing provisions in effect when the offense occurred.

Build two parallel conviction charts. For each case identify the statute, elements, disposition, sentence, CIMT analysis, and documents that may be consulted under the categorical framework. The chart often reveals that one predicate is legally weaker than the other.

If the single scheme issue is disputed, create a precise timeline of the criminal acts. Relevant facts can include the time between acts, whether the first crime was complete, movement to a new location, selection of another victim, acquisition of new property, opportunity to stop, a new decision, and whether later conduct was necessary to achieve the objective of the earlier act.

Do not confuse the categorical CIMT inquiry with the factual single scheme inquiry. The court may need facts concerning the relationship between the criminal acts even though the legal classification of each conviction as a CIMT is governed by the categorical framework.

Because §237(a)(2)(A)(ii) requires two qualifying CIMT convictions, legally effective post conviction relief affecting one predicate can change the result. A vacatur based on a substantive or procedural defect may have different immigration consequences from a court action entered solely for rehabilitation or immigration purposes.

Obtain the motion, order, transcript, statutory basis, and findings supporting any vacatur, amendment, plea withdrawal, or other post conviction action. Immigration counsel should analyze the proposed remedy before criminal counsel seeks it so that the requested relief addresses the actual immigration problem.

For an admitted respondent in removal proceedings, DHS generally bears the burden of proving deportability by clear and convincing evidence. That burden includes establishing the required convictions and their legal character under the charged provision.

The respondent separately bears the applicable burden for forms of relief. An incomplete criminal record can therefore have different consequences depending on whether the court is deciding DHS's removability charge or the respondent's eligibility for relief. Those burdens should be identified separately in the hearing brief.

If removability is sustained, analyze relief independently. Potential options can include cancellation of removal, adjustment with an available waiver, former §212(c) relief for qualifying historical convictions, asylum related protection, VAWA remedies, post conviction relief, or other case specific forms of relief.

The convictions can also affect good moral character, continuous residence, stop time questions, discretionary analysis, and eligibility for other benefits. Separately determine whether either offense is alleged to be an aggravated felony because that classification can impose additional statutory bars.

First obtain certified records for every alleged predicate. Confirm that at least two dispositions qualify as immigration convictions. Analyze each offense independently under the categorical CIMT framework. Then reconstruct the underlying criminal episodes and apply Baeza-Galindo, Islam, and Adetiba to determine whether the crimes arose from separate schemes.

After the removability analysis is complete, review post conviction options, alternative criminal charges, aggravated felony exposure, cancellation, waivers, and other relief. This sequence keeps the distinct questions of conviction, moral turpitude, single scheme, and relief from being collapsed into one general criminal history discussion.