October 23, 2026 · By Ahmad Yakzan
The Aurora Immigration Court has terminated removal proceedings against our client, a longtime lawful permanent resident the government sought to remove over a prior Florida conviction. The result lets our client keep the status he has held for more than a decade — and it turned on a question that comes up constantly in crimmigration work: does a conviction's label tell you anything about its immigration consequences, or do you have to look at what the statute actually requires?
CASE SUMMARY
Court: Aurora Immigration Court (EOIR), Aurora, Colorado
Underlying Conviction: Fla. Stat. § 316.80 — Unlawful Conveyance of Fuel; Obtaining Fuel Fraudulently
Government's Argument: The conviction was a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT), supporting removal
Outcome: Motion to terminate granted; removal proceedings terminated
Counsel of Record: Ahmad Yakzan, Esq. — Florida Bar No. 88886
Client: Lawful permanent resident of more than ten years
Our client's removal case didn't start with a new offense — it started with a years-old Florida conviction under § 316.80, Florida's statute covering the unlawful conveyance of fuel and obtaining fuel fraudulently. DHS argued that the conviction qualified as a crime involving moral turpitude, a category of offense that can make a lawful permanent resident both inadmissible and removable even long after the conviction itself is final.
That argument put everything at stake. A CIMT finding doesn't just affect the original sentence — it can undo status that took years to build, regardless of how much time has passed or how the person has lived since.
"Crime involving moral turpitude" is not defined by a fixed list of offenses. It's a legal category that courts apply through the categorical approach: comparing the elements of the statute of conviction — not the person's actual conduct — against the generic federal definition of a CIMT. A conviction only counts if the statute's elements are the same as, or narrower than, that federal definition in every case it could realistically cover.
That means two convictions that sound similar in plain English can land on opposite sides of the line, depending on exactly what the government had to prove to convict. A fraud-adjacent label in a statute's name is not the same thing as a categorical finding of moral turpitude — the statute's actual elements control.
"The government's argument rested on the label attached to the statute, not what it actually requires the government to prove. Once the court looked at the elements, the conclusion followed."
— Ahmad Yakzan, Founder, American Dream Law Office PLLC
We moved to terminate proceedings, arguing that § 316.80 does not categorically require the kind of fraudulent intent the federal CIMT definition demands in every case it reaches. Where a statute like this sweeps in conduct that doesn't rise to moral turpitude under the generic federal standard, a conviction under it cannot support removal on that ground — no matter how the offense is commonly described.
The Aurora Immigration Court agreed and granted the motion to terminate. The outcome didn't turn on sympathy or on minimizing what the underlying case involved. It turned on a precise, elements-based reading of a statute that most people — including, often, the attorneys who first handled the criminal case — never think to analyze for its immigration consequences.
With proceedings terminated, our client keeps the lawful permanent resident status he has held for more than a decade. There is no removal order, no bar to reentry, and no interruption to the life he has built in the United States.
This case is a reminder of something we see constantly in crimmigration work: a criminal case can be fully resolved — sentence served, probation completed, years gone by — and still resurface as a removal case when DHS decides a conviction fits a removability ground. Whether it actually does is rarely obvious from the statute's name alone, and getting it wrong can cost someone their status permanently.
If you or someone you know is a lawful permanent resident facing removal proceedings over a past conviction, the categorical analysis has to happen before you can know what's really at stake — and before any plea in a pending criminal case, if there's still time to shape the outcome. We handle these cases for clients across Florida and, when the case demands it, before immigration courts nationwide.
Disclaimer: Outcomes in immigration cases depend on the specific facts and circumstances of each matter. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome in any future case. Nothing in this blog post constitutes legal advice or creates an attorney-client relationship. The client's identity has been withheld to protect his privacy.
If a past conviction is putting your status at risk, schedule a consultation with Ahmad Yakzan at American Dream Law Office. Call (656) 236-0205 or schedule online.
Ask AmDrm™
