FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ISIDRO CASTILLO-CRUZ, 

Petitioner, No. 06-70896

v. Agency No.  A091-517-162 ERIC H. HOLDER JR., Attorney

General, OPINION

Respondent. 

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Argued and Submitted

May 12, 2009—San Francisco, California

Filed September 17, 2009

Before: Mary M. Schroeder and Stephen Reinhardt,

Circuit Judges, and Louis H. Pollak,* Senior District Judge.

Opinion by Judge Reinhardt

*The Honorable Louis H. Pollak, Senior United States District Judge

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. 

13471
COUNSEL

Charles E. Nichol, Esq., San Francisco, California, for the

petitioner.

CASTILLO-CRUZ v. HOLDER 13473
Peter D. Keisler, David V. Bernal, Colette J. Winston, United

States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for the

respondent.

OPINION

REINHARDT, Circuit Judge:

Isidro Castillo-Cruz petitions for review of the order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming without

opinion the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision to pretermit

his application for cancellation of removal. The IJ found that

Castillo-Cruz had been convicted of two crimes of moral turpitude, petty theft and receipt of stolen property, rendering

him statutorily inadmissible under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1182(a)(2)(A)(2)(i)(I) and ineligible for cancellation of

removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(C).1 The IJ found that

Castillo-Cruz’s criminal convictions, because they involve

crimes of moral turpitude, interrupt the period of ten years of

continuous physical presence required for cancellation of

removal, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1). The IJ further found that

Castillo-Cruz’s criminal convictions preclude him from showing “good moral character” during the requisite ten-year

period, which the IJ stated should be calculated from the date

Castillo-Cruz first entered the United States. But see 8 U.S.C.

§ 1229b(1)(A)-(B) (stating that for the purposes of cancellation, an applicant must demonstrate good moral character “for

a continuous period of not less than 10 years immediately preceding the date of such application.”) 

1Although the Immigration Court does not set forth this finding as a

separate element of its decision, it is implicit in the IJ’s ruling that

Castillo-Cruz’s convictions for crimes of moral turpitude trigger the “stoptime” rule under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1). The IJ’s finding that the crimes

of which Castillo-Cruz was convicted were crimes of moral turpitude is

thus the ultimate basis of the IJ’s denial of Castillo-Cruz’s application for

cancellation of removal. 

13474 CASTILLO-CRUZ v. HOLDER
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1) to review

a final order of removal, and under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D)

to review the constitutional and legal questions raised by individuals found removable based on criminal activity. See

Galeana-Mendoza v. Gonzales, 465 F.3d 1054, 1056-57 (9th

Cir. 2006). We affirm the IJ’s determination that CastilloCruz’s conviction for petty theft constituted a crime of moral

turpitude, but reverse with respect to the receipt of stolen

property determination. We further reverse with respect to the

IJ’s good moral character determination. Castillo-Cruz’s single conviction for petty theft may fall within the petty

offenses exception, see 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(ii)(II). If it

does, Castillo-Cruz would not be subject to the “stop time”

rule of 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1) precluding him from establishing the requisite period of continuous presence. We therefore

remand to the BIA so that it may decide in the first instance

whether the petty theft conviction falls within the petty

offenses exception, see 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(ii)(II), and so

that it may resolve any other issues that may exist regarding

Castillo-Cruz’s application for cancellation of removal.

I. BACKGROUND

Isidro Castillo-Cruz is a Mexican citizen who entered the

United States around March of 1984 without inspection. He

is the father of four United States citizen children, Lilibethe,

Angel Alexis, Jeanette, and Edward Jesus. 

In May 2003, the Department of Homeland Security

(“DHS”) served Castillo-Cruz with a notice to appear, charging him with being removable under the Immigration and

Nationality Act (“INA”) § 212(a)(6)(A)(i), 8 U.S.C.

§ 1182(a)(6)(A)(i), for being present in the United States

without being admitted. The Notice to Appear also alleged

that he had been convicted of possession of stolen property in

violation of Cal. Penal Code § 496 in April 1990. 

CASTILLO-CRUZ v. HOLDER 13475
Castillo-Cruz admitted the allegations in his Notice to

Appear and conceded removability, but sought cancellation of

removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b). In his application for cancellation of removal, he listed his prior convictions, which

included, among others,2 a 1989 petty theft misdemeanor conviction under Cal. Penal Code § 484/488, and a 1990 conviction for receipt of stolen property under Cal. Penal Code § 496.3

The record of conviction showed that Castillo-Cruz had been

sentenced to five months jail time and three years of probation

for the latter offense.4

The immigration judge (“IJ”) granted the DHS’s motion to

pretermit Castillo-Cruz’s cancellation application on the basis

that both his 1989 conviction for theft and 1990 conviction for

receipt of stolen property were crimes of moral turpitude.5

2Castillo-Cruz admitted to other convictions, but they are not relevant

to the issues before this court. 

3The removal hearing was continued a number of times so that CastilloCruz would have the opportunity to have his § 496 felony conviction

reduced from a felony to a misdemeanor. The Santa Clara Superior Court

reduced the conviction to a misdemeanor on November 20, 2003. CastilloCruz also attempted to have his § 484/488 petty theft misdemeanor conviction vacated, but was, in that respect, unsuccessful. 

4The government did not submit the record of conviction for the

§ 484/488 petty theft offense, although a print out of Castillo-Cruz’s criminal record shows that he was sentenced to two years of probation for the

offense. 

5We recently held that an alien convicted under California Penal Code

§ 496(a) and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of sixteen months was

convicted of an aggravated felony. See Verdugo-Gonzalez v. Holder, No.

06-73733. An aggravated felony theft offense is “a theft offense (including

receipt of stolen property) or burglary offense for which the term of

imprisonment [is] at least one year.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(G). In

Verdugo-Gonzalez, the petitioner’s application for cancellation of removal

was pretermitted because he had been convicted of a theft offense, receiving stolen property, for which he was sentenced to more than one year in

prison. Castillo-Cruz, although charged under the same state statute as

Verdugo-Gonzalez, was sentenced to only five months imprisonment, and

thus could not be deemed to be an aggravated felon: hence the IJ’s decision to pretermit Castillo Cruz’s application for cancellation of removal

based on moral turpitude. 

13476 CASTILLO-CRUZ v. HOLDER
The IJ found that because both crimes occurred within less

than ten years of Castillo-Cruz’s entry in 1984, he could not

establish the requisite ten year period of continuous residence

or good moral character. On April 4, 2005, the IJ granted

Castillo-Cruz voluntary departure. 

The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirmed the

IJ’s decision without issuing an opinion, and reinstated the

voluntary departure period. Castillo-Cruz filed a timely petition for review.

II. ANALYSIS

“[W]e review de novo the BIA’s determination of questions

of law, except to the extent that deference is owed to its interpretation of the governing statutes and regulations.” GarciaQuintero v. Gonzales, 455 F.3d 1006, 1011 (9th Cir. 2006);

see also Gonzalez-Gonzalez v. Ashcroft, 390 F.3d 649, 651

(9th Cir. 2004). 

A. A conviction for receipt of stolen property under

§ 496 is not categorically a crime of moral turpitude

The IJ relied on Ninth Circuit authority in concluding that

Castillo-Cruz’s convictions were for crimes of moral turpitude. The IJ correctly determined that Castillo-Cruz’s 1989

conviction for petty theft under California Penal Code

§ 484/488 constituted a crime of moral turpitude under our

case law. See Flores Juarez v. Mukasey, 530 F.3d 1020, 1022

(9th Cir. 2008); United States v. Esparza-Ponce, 193 F.3d

1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 842 (2000).

The IJ erred, however, in relying on Patel v. INS, 542 F.2d

796 (9th Cir. 1976), as a basis for its conclusion that the 1990

conviction for receipt of stolen property under California

Penal Code § 496(a) amounted to a crime of moral turpitude.

In Patel, the petitioner had conceded that his conviction was

for a crime of moral turpitude, see id. at 798, and, in any

CASTILLO-CRUZ v. HOLDER 13477
event, Patel preceded Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575

(1990), which established the mode of analysis that we now

follow in deciding whether a conviction is categorically a

crime of moral turpitude.6

[1] Castillo-Cruz argues that § 496(a) punishes conduct that

is categorically broader than a crime of moral turpitude

because a person can be convicted under that section even if

he did not have the intent to permanently deprive the rightful

owner of property. The BIA has held in a number of cases

that a theft offense is not categorically a crime of moral turpitude if the statute of conviction is broad enough to criminalize

a taking with intent to deprive the owner of his property only

temporarily. See, e.g., Matter of Grazley, 14 I. & N. Dec. 330,

333 (BIA 1973) (“Ordinarily, a conviction for theft is considered to involve moral turpitude only when a permanent taking

is intended.”); In the Matter of P, 2 I. & N. Dec. 887 (B.I.A.

1947) (holding that offenses like joy riding are not morally

turpitudinous because they do not involve the intent to

deprive the owner of the property permanently); Matter of H,

2 I & N Dec. 864, 865 (BIA 1947) (“[T]he element which

must exist before the crime of theft or stealing is deemed one

involving moral turpitude is that the offense must be one

which involves a permanent taking as distinguished from a

temporary one.”). In its recent case law, the BIA continues to

consider “whether there was an intention to permanently

deprive the owner of his property.” See In re Jurado-Delgado,

24 I & N. Dec. 29, 33 (BIA 2006). 

[2] We accord substantial deference to established constructions by the BIA of the statutes it is charged to adminis6Wadman v. INS, 329 F.2d 812 (9th Cir. 1964), also preceded Taylor.

Although we held that a conviction under British law for receipt of property knowing to have been stolen is a crime of moral turpitude, we did not

specify what element of that crime made it morally turpitudinous and we

did not analyze whether that element would be present in every conviction

under that law. 

13478 CASTILLO-CRUZ v. HOLDER
ter. See Perez-Enriquez v. Gonzales, 463 F.3d 1007, 1009 (9th

Cir. 2006) (en banc). We are aware that the BIA has held that

receiving property with the knowledge that it was taken with

an intent to deprive the owner of property permanently

amounts to a crime of moral turpitude. See, e.g., Matter of

Salvail, 17 I. & N. Dec. 19, 20 (BIA 1979); In the Matter of

G, 2 I. & N. Dec. 235, 237-38 (BIA 1945).7 It has not, however, expressly held that the recipient of stolen property has

committed a theft offense amounting to a crime of moral turpitude if he acted with such knowledge, but not with the intent

to deprive the owner of property permanently. To the contrary, it has held consistently that in order for an individual to

have committed a crime of moral turpitude, that person must

have behaved in a way that is “inherently base, vile, or

depraved . . . .” In re Jurado-Delgado, 24 I & N. Dec. at 33.

In the context of theft offenses, such as receipt of stolen property, the BIA has interpreted this baseness to be evinced in the

offender’s “intention to permanently deprive the owner of his

property.” Id.8 If joyriding is not a crime of moral turpitude,

7The Second Circuit, in Michel v. INS, 206 F.3d 253 (2d. Cir. 2000),

and the Third Circuit in Leon-Reynoso v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 633 (3d. Cir.

2002), have further interpreted Matter of Salvail to hold that knowing

receipt of stolen property may constitute a crime of moral turpitude. 

8

In this respect, there is a clear distinction between the standard applied

to determine whether a theft offense is an “aggravated felony” and the

standard applied to determine whether a theft offense is a “crime of moral

turpitude.” As we recently held in Verdugo-Gonzalez v. Holder, 06-73733,

there is a categorical match between the full range of conduct proscribed

by section 496(a) of the California Penal Code and the generic definition

of a theft offense aggravated felony. See Gonzalez v. Duenas-Alvarez, 549

U.S. at 189 (defining a generic theft offense as “the taking of property or

an exercise of control over property . . . even if such deprivation is less

than total or permanent.“)(emphasis added). There cannot however, be a

categorical match between the full range of conduct proscribed by section

496(a) of the California Penal Code and the generic definition of a theft

offense crime of moral turpitude. See Matter of Grazley, 14 I. & N. Dec.

at 333 (“a conviction for theft is considered to involve moral turpitude

only when a permanent taking is intended.”) (emphasis added). Thus,

there is no inconsistency between Verdugo-Gonzalez and our present decision. 

CASTILLO-CRUZ v. HOLDER 13479
however, it would seem that receipt of stolen property for the

purpose of joyriding would also not be a crime of moral turpitude, or to put it more generally, if an intent to deprive permanently is necessary to find an act of theft morally

turpitudinous, the same principle would appear to apply to the

receipt of stolen property. A recipient who intends, by receiving the stolen property, to deprive its rightful owner of its possession only temporarily would not seem to have committed

an act that may be termed morally turpitudinous. We therefore

consider whether § 496(a) criminalizes conduct broader than

that undertaken with the intent to deprive the owner of property permanently.

[3] As we noted earlier, we have consistently held that acts

of petty theft constitute crimes of moral turpitude. See FloresJuarez v. Mukasey, 530 F.3d 1020, 1022 (9th Cir. 2008);

United States v. Esparza-Ponce, 193 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th

Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 842 (2000). Under Californian law, a conviction for grand theft or petty theft under Cal.

Penal Code § 484 requires, in common with other crimes of

moral turpitude, “the specific intent to deprive the victim of

his property permanently.” People v. Albert A., 47 Cal. App.

4th 1004, (Cal. App. Ct. 1996). See also People v. Guerra, 40

Cal. 3d 377, 385 (1985), People v. Butler, 65 Cal. 2d 569,

572-73 (1967), overruled on other grounds by People v.

Tufunga, 21 Cal. 4th 935, 956 (1999). Receipt of stolen property under Cal. Penal Code § 496(a) has no such requirement,

but rather permits conviction for an intent to deprive an individual of his property temporarily. Receipt of stolen property

under Cal. Penal Code § 496(a) thus falls outside the generic

definition of an offense, such as theft, that involves an intent

to permanently deprive an individual of his property, and,

accordingly, outside the generic definition of a crime of moral

turpitude.

In Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez, 549 U.S. 183 (2007), the

Supreme Court held that “to find that a state statute creates a

crime outside the generic definition of a listed crime in a fed13480 CASTILLO-CRUZ v. HOLDER
eral statute requires . . . a realistic probability . . . that the

State would apply its statute to conduct that falls outside the

generic definition of a crime.” Id. at 193. The Supreme Court

suggested that to “show that realistic possibility, an offender

. . . must at least point to his own case or to other cases in

which the state courts in fact did apply the statute in the special (nongeneric) manner for which he argues.” Id. CastilloCruz has shown that there is a “realistic probability” that a

defendant who acted with general criminal intent, but with the

intent to deprive the owner of possession only temporarily,

might be held liable under § 496(a). 

To obtain a § 496(a) conviction, the prosecution must prove

only that: (1) the property was stolen; (2) the defendant knew

that the property was stolen; and (3) the defendant had possession of such property. See People v. Land, 30 Cal. App. 4th

220, 223 (Cal. App. Ct. 1994). There is no requirement of an

intent on the part of the recipient to deprive the owner of possession permanently. Indeed, California courts have upheld

convictions under § 496 in the context of joyriding, where

there was indisputably no such intent. In People v. Jaramillo,

16 Cal. 3d 752 (Cal. 1976), the California Supreme Court

held that a defendant convicted under California Vehicle

Code § 10851 for intending to temporarily deprive the owner

of possession of his vehicle could also be found guilty of

receipt of stolen goods under § 496. See id. at 758-59. See

also People v. Austell, 223 Cal. App. 3d 1249, 1252 (Cal.

App. Ct. 1990) (holding that dual convictions under the California Vehicle Code § 10851 and California Penal Code § 496

were proper because defendant was not convicted under

§ 10851 for intending to steal the vehicle but rather for simply

driving it); In re Jorge C., 2008 WL 2536076 (Cal. App. Ct.

2008) (unpublished) (upholding conviction under § 496 for a

defendant characterized as a “joy rider”).9

9Although an unpublished opinion of the California Court of Appeals

should generally not be cited, unpublished cases are pertinent for showing

that there is a “realistic probability” that § 496 has been and will be

applied to conduct falling outside of the generic definition of a crime of

moral turpitude. See Vizcarra-Ayala v. Muksey, 514 F.3d 870, 876 n.3 (9th

Cir. 2008). 

CASTILLO-CRUZ v. HOLDER 13481
[4] We conclude that a conviction for receipt of stolen

property under § 496 is not categorically a crime of moral turpitude because it does not require an intent to permanently

deprive the owner of property. Castillo-Cruz’s conviction is

not a crime of moral turpitude under the modified categorical

analysis, as the government conceded at oral argument that

there is no evidence in the record establishing that his offense

involved an intent to deprive the owner of possession permanently. See Fernandez-Ruiz v. Gonzales, 466 F.3d 1121,

1132-33 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc).

B. Castillo-Cruz’s 1989 conviction may be eligible for

the “petty offenses” exception under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1182(a)(2)(ii)(II) and he may therefore not be subject to the “stop time” rule

Castillo-Cruz’s single conviction for a crime of moral

turpitude—petty theft—may fall within the petty offenses

exception set forth at 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(ii)(II). This

provision states that the bar to admission of an alien convicted

for a crime of moral turpitude shall not apply to an alien who

has committed only one such crime if:

[T]he maximum penalty possible for the crime of

which the alien was convicted . . . did not exceed

imprisonment for one year and, if the alien was convicted of such crime, the alien was not sentenced to

a term of imprisonment in excess of 6 months

(regardless of the extent to which the sentence was

ultimately executed).

California Penal Code Section 490 states that “Petty theft is

punishable by fine not exceeding one thousand dollars

($1,000), or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding

six months, or both.” The administrative record indicates that

Castillo-Cruz was sentenced to two years probation. It therefore appears that Castillo-Cruz’s 1989 conviction for petty

theft may fall within the petty offenses exception.

13482 CASTILLO-CRUZ v. HOLDER
If Castillo-Cruz’s conviction for petty theft falls within the

petty offenses exception, it would not render him inadmissible

to the United States. In such circumstances, Castillo-Cruz

would not be subject to the “stop time” rule of 8 U.S.C.

§ 1229b(d)(1), which states that “any period of continuous

residence or continuous physical presence in the United States

shall be deemed to end . . . when the alien has committed an

offense referred to in section 1182(a)(2) of this title that renders the alien inadmissible to the United States.” CastilloCruz’s twenty-five years of continuous residence in the

United States would therefore fulfil the requirement under 8

U.S.C. § 1229b(1)(A) that in order to be eligible for cancellation of removal an alien has “been physically present in the

United States for a continuous period of not less than 10 years

immediately preceding the date of such application.”

C. Castillo-Cruz did not fail to establish good moral

character during the ten-year period

[5] We further find that the IJ erred as a matter of law in

finding that Castillo-Cruz failed to establish good moral character during the ten-year period as required by 8 U.S.C.

§ 1229b(1)(B). The INA states that the Attorney General may

cancel removal of an alien applicant who has been a person

of good moral character “for a continuous period of not less

than 10 years immediately preceding the date of such application.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(1)(A)-(B). In Matter of OrtegaCabrera, 23 I. & N. Dec. 793 (BIA 2005), the BIA held that

the relevant ten year period for the moral character determination is calculated backwards from the date on which the cancellation of removal application is finally resolved by the IJ

or the BIA. Id. at 797. Castillo-Cruz was convicted for petty

theft in 1989 and for receipt of stolen property in 1990. More

than ten years had therefore passed between the date of conviction for either offense and the IJ’s decision of February 1,

2005. As the government concedes in its brief, these convictions do not therefore bar Castillo-Cruz from establishing the

prerequisite good moral character.

CASTILLO-CRUZ v. HOLDER 13483
[6] We remand to the BIA so that it may decide in the first

instance whether Castillo-Cruz’s petty theft conviction falls

within the petty offenses exception, see 8 U.S.C.

§ 1182(a)(2)(A)(ii)(II), and so that it may resolve any other

issues that may exist regarding his application for cancellation

of removal.

GRANTED and REMANDED.

13484 CASTILLO-CRUZ v. HOLDER