that the intent to use or transfer unlawfully does not necessarily require fraud or deceit. See Pet. Br. (Case No. 10-4525) at 19. This argument is not persuasive. The offense requires knowing possession of multiple identification documents which either (i) were not lawfully issued to the possessor, see § 1028(a)(3), or (ii) were altered for the purposes of deceit or not issued under the authority of a governmental entity. See § 1028(d)(4) (defining “false identification document”). If the possessor intends to use or transfer those documents in a way that violates a local, state, or federal law, it is difficult to understand how the intended use or transfer would not deceive the government and impair the effectiveness of its identification scheme. See Flores, 17 I. & N. Dec. at 229 (<HOLDING>). The House Report discussing § 1028(a), which
holding that robbery under california law categorically qualified as a crime involving moral turpitude and noting precedent in this and other circuits that theft crimes are crimes involving moral turpitude recognizing the longstanding rule that crimes that have fraud as an element are categorically crimes involving moral turpitude and a court may not apply the modified categorical approach if the statute proscribes only conduct that involves moral turpitude holding that assault with a deadly weapon was not a crime involving moral turpitude holding that procuring a female inmate for a house of prostitution involves moral turpitude because 1 it is a crime in which assistance and aid is given to the carrying on of the business of prostitution and 2 it is so far contrary to moral law as interpreted by the general moral sense of the community that the offender is brought to public disgrace is no longer generally respected and is deprived of social recognition by the community holding that moral turpitude is involved when the offender intentionally impairs the efficiency of a governmental program through deceit