United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS July 30, 2003
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-60871
Summary Calendar
LUCIO MORALES-CARRERA,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A74 088 747
--------------------
Before JOLLY, JONES and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Lucio Morales-Carrera challenges a final order of
removal issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)
on September 27, 2002. Following an evidentiary hearing, the
immigration judge (IJ) found Morales-Carrera removable under
8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i) as an alien who had been convicted of
a crime involving moral turpitude committed within five years of
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 02-60871
-2-
admission. The BIA summarily affirmed the IJ’s decision pursuant
to 8 C.F.R. § 3.1(a)(7).**
Morales-Carrera argues that his deferred adjudication was not
a criminal conviction for immigration purposes. Morales-Carrera’s
argument is foreclosed by this court’s decision in Moosa v. INS,
171 F.3d 994, 1005-06 (5th Cir. 1999).
Morales-Carrera argues that his conviction for forging proof
of financial responsibility under TEX. TRANSP. CODE § 601.196 (West
1999) was not a crime involving moral turpitude. Forgery and fraud
are crimes involving moral turpitude. See Jordan v. DeGeorge, 341
U.S. 223, 232 (1951)(fraud); Balogun v. Ashcroft, 270 F.3d 274,
276, 278-79 (5th Cir. 2001)(forgery). Because the offense involved
forgery and was fraudulent in nature, the IJ did not err in
determining that the crime involved moral turpitude.
Morales-Carrera argues that the BIA violated his right to due
process by affirming his appeal without opinion pursuant to 8
C.F.R. § 3.1(a)(7)(ii). After Morales-Carrera filed his brief,
this court rejected a due process challenge to the “streamlining”
regulation, holding that the summary affirmance procedures do not
violate due process and do not deprive the court of a basis for
judicial review. Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 832-33 (5th
Cir. 2003).
**
The regulation previously cited as 8 C.F.R. § 3.1 (2002)
can now be found at 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1 (2003). Because the
parties referred to the 2002 regulation, and because the new
regulation is either identical or substantially similar to the
older version, we will refer to the 2002 regulation.
No. 02-60871
-3-
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.