(1) Proximity in time is critical however not ample to conclude that two crimes come up from a single scheme of legal misconduct beneath part 237(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii) (2018). Matter of Adetiba, 20 I&N Dec. 506, 509 (BIA 1992), clarified.
(2) Two crimes involving ethical turpitude, premised on separate turpitudinous acts with completely different targets, neither of which was dedicated in the middle of undertaking the opposite, represent separate schemes of legal misconduct.
“Whereas driving drunk, the respondent struck a gaggle of pedestrians together with his truck, killing one among them and injuring the opposite three. He then drove away. The respondent was convicted of aggravated assault with a lethal weapon and of failing to cease and render support. The Immigration Choose terminated proceedings, concluding that whereas the respondent had been convicted of two crimes involving ethical turpitude, they arose out of a single scheme of legal misconduct. We reverse.”