Professor Evangeline Abriel and her co-authors have published Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude: Changing Definitions and Strategies in IMMIGRATION PRACTICE POINTERS: TIPS FOR HANDLING COMPLEX CASES (Dan Berger et al. eds. 2020). A noncitizen who commits a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT) may thereby be subject to removal from the United States under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The Act, however, does not define the term “crime involving moral turpitude” and case law on the term’s meaning has evolved frequently. In this chapter, Professor Abriel and her colleagues begin by discussing current caselaw and trends in CIMT analysis. They then advance several strategies for defeating a CIMT-based removal action. First, given that the Board of Immigration Appeals has recently sought to expand the scope of offenses that qualify as a CIMT, the authors focus at length on arguments for avoiding a retroactive application of a Board of Immigration Appeals action. Second, after concluding that the term “crime against moral turpitude” is “an evolving nebula”, the authors explicate several arguments that the Immigration and Nationality Act’s CIMT provision is unconstitutionally vague. Finally, Professor Abriel and her colleagues argue that courts should not give deference to the Board of Immigration Appeals’ interpretation of the term “crime involving moral turpitude” given that the Board has no expertise in interpreting state criminal law, that it has engaged in arguably ends-driven decision making, and that the Board’s deviation from its previous interpretation has negatively implicated prior reliance interests.