The First Circuit has determined that a Connecticut conviction for third-degree larceny qualifies as a theft offense aggravated felony.  The petitioner argued that the statute was not a categorical match to the definition of a theft offense because it did not require an intent to permanently deprive the owner of the benefits of ownership and because it included theft of services.  The court rejected the first argument, finding that a total deprivation is not required.  The court also rejected the second argument, finding that Congress did not intend the definition of a theft offense to be a perfect match to the common-law definition of theft, and noting that at the time theft-related aggravated felonies were added to the INA, the Model Penal Code and half of the states included theft of services in the definition of theft.

Finally, the court declined to rule on whether theft by fraudulent means, which is clearly covered by the statute, precluded a determination that the statute was a categorical match to the generic definition of a theft offense, because the petitioner had failed to raise this argument to the agency.

The full text of De Lima v. Sessions can be found here: