# Theft

## <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Theft &amp; Intent to Permanently Deprive</span>

<p class="callout danger">****A theft offense must include a permanent intent to deprive a victim of property which cannot be assumed.**** </p>

<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); white-space: pre-wrap;">The Board of Immigration Appeals has overruled its decision in </span>**Matter of Jurado**<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); white-space: pre-wrap;">, which assumed that retail theft in Pennsylvania inherently includes an intent to permanently deprive, finding it inconsistent with the categorical approach outlined by the Supreme Court in </span>**Mathis v. United States**<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">. The Board then concluded that Pennsylvania retail theft convictions criminalize less than permanent takings, and thus, under pre-</span>**Diaz LIzarraga**<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); white-space: pre-wrap;"> precedent, they do not constitute crimes involving moral turpitude. </span>

****Matter of Bharatkumar Girishkumar THAKKER, 28 I&amp;N Dec. 843 (BIA 2024)****

(1) The assumption in Matter of Jurado that a retail theft offense involves an intent to permanently deprive a victim of their property is inconsistent with the categorical approach as currently articulated by the Supreme Court. Matter of Jurado, 24 I&amp;N Dec. ‍29 (BIA 2006), aff'd sub. nom. Jurado‑Delgado v. Att'y Gen. of U.S., 498 F. App'x 107 (3d Cir. 2009), overruled in part.

<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); white-space: pre-wrap;">The full text of </span>**Matter of Thakker**<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); white-space: pre-wrap;"> can be found here: </span>

[<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">https://www.justice.gov/d9/2024-09/4080.pdf</span>](https://www.justice.gov/d9/2024-09/4080.pdf)