The Second Circuit has denied a petition for review filed by a Filipino lawful permanent resident convicted of knowing making or presenting materially false statements to immigration authorities, which categorically constitutes a crime involving moral turpitude.
The Court held that knowingly presenting to immigration authorities a required document that the presenter knows lacks any reasonable basis in law or fact is inherently deceitful conduct that impairs an important government function, satisfying the BIA's two-part definition of moral turpitude, which the Court adopted as its own post-Loper Bright. The Court rejected the petitioner's argument that the subclause could sweep in innocent conduct, explaining that his own hypotheticals, such as filing a meritless asylum application solely to access cancellation-of-removal proceedings, themselves qualified as CIMTs, and distinguished the statute from misprision of a felony, which the Court has previously held is not categorically a CIMT because it lacks any intent element.
The full text of Nemis v. Blanche can be found here: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/OPN/25-304_opn.pdf