99-2049, slip op. The question here is not whether a particular crime is a crime of moral turpitude. Rather, the question is whether the conviction under M.G.L. c. 90 24B, a statute which encompasses a number of offenses, was for mere possession of a fraudulent driver's license or whether it was for use of a fraudulent driver's license. The Immigration Judge here found that the offense was for use of a fraudulent license. The BIA affirmed.
Petitioner launches a two-fold attack.
The agency has said it will not look into the underlying facts of the particular crime, but will focus first on the statute of conviction. If the statute of conviction, as here, includes both crimes of moral turpitude and others, then the agency may look to the indictment, the charging papers, the conviction documents, and the like to see which type of crime was involved. Ajami, Interim Decision 3405. Here, the focus was on exactly those documents. That document shows that there were related charges, continued without a finding, for illegally operating a motor vehicle without being duly licensed.