Aderito Ferraz Mota, a lawful permanent resident, was found removable for having been convicted of two crimes involving moral turpitude (“CIMTs”) pursuant to § 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed, reasoning that his two convictions were CIMTs. Mota petitioned for review, arguing that his convictions were not CIMTs because the Connecticut statute at issue, CGS § 21a-277(a)(1), may be violated by a wide range of conduct which is not necessarily morally reprehensible. We DENY the petition.

From the discussion:

Nonetheless, the fact that the statute may cover scenarios in which a defendant “offered,” “exchanged,” or “gifted” a narcotic substance, even a small amount, to a friend for no or little renumeration does not foreclose our conclusion under the categorical approach. Michel v. INS, 206 F.3d 263, 265 (2d 15 Cir. 2000) (“[T]he fact that a crime may be considered only a minor offense does 16 not preclude a finding that it involves moral turpitude.” (quoting Matter of Serna, 17 20 I. & N. Dec. 579, 582 (B.I.A. 1992)); Carmona, 576 F.2d at 411 (“Social harm in drug distribution is great indeed. The drug seller, at every level of distribution, is at the root of the pervasive cycle of destructive drug abuse.”). Consequently, the agency did not err in holding that violating CGS § 21a-277(a)(1) involves moral turpitude.