Court Decisions Relating to Board Precedents

Board Cite

Board Holding

Court Response

1. De Lara Bellajaro v. Schiltgen, 378 F. 3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2004)- questions continued validity after 2000 statutory amendment to INA § 310(c)

2. Zayed v. U.S., 368 F. 3d 902 (6th Cir. 2004)- (same as above)

3. Hernandez de Anderson v. Gonzales, 497 F. 3d 927 (9th Cir. 2007)- defers to Board’s reaffirmance in Acosta-Hidalgo, 24 I&N Dec. 103

Zoarab v. Mukasey, 524 F. 3d 777 (6th Cir. 2008) - follows

B. Moral turpitude can lie in criminally reckless conduct

B. Knapik v. Ashcroft, 384 F.3d 84 (3d Cir. 2004) - upholds, finding conviction for attempted reckless endangerment is cimt

Guled v. Mukasey, 515 F. 3d 872 (8th Cir. 2008): cites with approval.

1. Monet v. INS, 791 F.3d 752 (9th Cir. 1986) - agrees

2. Asika v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 264 (4th Cir. 2004), cites with approval

3. Garcia v. Attorney General of the United States, 533 F.3d 724 (3d Cir., 2009), disagrees (see also Bamidele v. INS, 99 F.3d 557 (3d Cir. 1996)).

1. Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 345 F.3d 824 (9^th Cir. 2003) - cites with approval

2. Cho v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 96 (1^st Cir. 2005) - cites generally with approval

2. Steinhouse v. Ashcroft, 247 F.Supp.2d 201 (D. Conn. 2003) - upholds criteria, but finds Board failed to consider the important criterion of whether the alien presents a danger to the community

3. Brue v. Gonzales, 464 F.3d 1227 (10th Cir. 2006) - follows.

4. Morales v. Gonzales, 478 F. 3d 972 (9th Cir. 2007)-upholds the criteria, but finds not followed in this case.

2. Ordonez v. INS, 345 F.3d 777 (9^th Cir. 2003) - rejects

B. Asylum applicant must show country-wide persecution

A.2. Ahmed v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 611 (7^th Cir. 2003) - cites with approval

A.3. Lin v. Ashcroft, 356 F.3d 1027 (9^th Cir. 2004) - cites with approval, also noting family as potential particular social group

A.4. Elien v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 392(1st Cir. 2004) - cited with approval

A.5. Thomas v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 1177 (9^th Cir.2005) - cites with approval for rule that kinship ties/family can be particular social group

A.6. Tapiero-de Orejuela v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 666 (7^th Cir. 2005) - cites with approval

A.7 Niang v. Gonzales, 422 F.3d 1187 (10^th Cir. 2005) - adopts as reasonable construction of term

A.8. Escobar v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 363 (3d Cir. 2005) - cites with approval, but finds homeless children in Honduras do not qualify as psg

A.9. Gao v. Gonzales, 440 F.3d 62 (2^nd Cir. 2006) - cites with approval

A.10. Delgado v. Mukasey, 508 F. 3d 702 (2d Cir. 2007): follows

B. Manzoor v. INS, 254 F.3d 342 (1^st Cir. 2001) - cautions that burden is on INS, not alien, to show no nation-wide threat, if past persecution has been shown

B. Paroled aliens are properly in exclusion, not deportation proceedings

A.2. Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532 (9^th Cir. 2004) - cited generally with approval

B. Assa'ad v. U.S. Attorney General, 332 F.3d 1321(11^th Cir. 206/5/03) - cited generally with approval

1. Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182 ( 5^th Cir. 2004) - cites with approval

2. Segran v. Mukasey, 511 F. 3d 1 (1st Cir. 2007): cites

A. Generally, reasonable punishment for evasion of military conscripion in not persecution.

B. Exceptions to A: (a) in rare cases, where such punishment is disproportionately severe on account of protected asylum ground; or (b) where military service requires one to engage in internationally condemned inhuman conduct.

C. Salim,18 I&N Dec. 311, distinguishable because there, refusal was to serve in foreign occupying army.

1. Lozada v. INS,* 857 F.2d 10 (1^st Cir. 1988) - affirmed

2. Castillo-Perez v. INS, 212 F.3d 518 (9^th Cir. 2000) - Lozada reqs. "not sacrosanct" - substantial compliance may be sufficient

3. Lara v. Trominski, 216 F.3d 487 (5^th Cir. 2000) - upholds requirements

4. Hernandez v. Reno, 238 F.3d 50 (1^st Cir. 2001) - upholds requirements

5. Saakian v. INS, 252 F.3d 21(1^st Cir. 2001) - agrees with 9^th Cir. that reqs. may not be "arbitrarily" applied

6. Stroe v. INS, 256 F.3d 498 (7^th Cir. 2001) - upholds, and rejects any exceptions to Lozada rules - also questions whether there is constitutional right to counsel in deportation proceedings

7. Lu v. Ashcroft, 259 F.3d 127 (3d Cir. 2001) - upholds requirements, BUT failure to file bar complaint not fatal if reas. explanation

8. Rodriguez-Lariz v. INS, 282 F.3d 1218 (9^th Cir. 2002) - Lozada reqs. need not always be "rigidly applied."

9. Melkonian v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 1061(9^th Cir. 2003) - cited with approval, including req. that prejudice be shown

10. Hamid v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 465 (6^th Cir 2003) - upholds requirements

11. Lo v. Ashcroft, 341F.3d 934 (9^th Cir. 2003) - makes clear that 9^th Cir. will not rigidly apply the requirements

12. Azanor v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1013 (9^th Cir. 2004) - 9^th Cir. Will require affidavit regarding atty conduct where facts are not plain on the record, and also prejudice must be shown

13. Dakane v. U.S. Attorney General, 371 F.3d 771(11^th Cir. 2004) - cited with approval, including req. that prejudice be shown

14. Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 2004 383 F. 3d 893 (9^th Cir. 2004) - cites generally, and finds erroneous advice regarding change in law did not taint fairness of proceedings

15. Mohammed v. Gonzales,400 F.3d 785 (9^th Cir. 2005) - on prejudice req, states alien only need show "plausible grounds" for relief

16. Hernandez-Moran v. Gonzales, 408 F.3d 496 (8^th Cir. 2005) - cites with approval and finds alien did not comply with requirements

17. Zheng v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 409 F.3d 43 (2d Cir. 2005) - cites with approval and finds alien did not comply with requirements

18. Yang v. Gonzales, 478 F. 3d 133 (2d Cir. 2007)-cites with approval, but holds only substantial compliance with requirements necessary. Remands for Board to consider evidence “too important to ignore.”

19. Grigoryan v. Keisler, 507 F. 3d 1206 (9th Cir. 2007): cites

20. Wang v. BIA, 508 F. 3d 710, (2d Cir. 2007): follows

21. Morales Apolinar v. Mukasey, 514F. 3d 893 (9th Cir. 2008): follows, finds substantial compliance.

22. Ruiz-Martinez v. Mukasey, 516 F. 3d 102 (2d Cir. 2008): follows

23. Beltre-Veloz v. Mukasey, — F. 3d —, 2008 WL 2673213 (1st Cir. 2008): upholds requirements

24. Rafiyev v. Mukasey, 536 F.3d 853 (8th cir. 2008), disagrees in part - no Fifth Amend. right to effective counsel

25. Afawni v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 788 (4th Cir. 2008), disagrees in part - no constitutional ineffective assistance doctrine

26. Magala v. Gonzales, 434 F.3d 523 (7th Cir. 2005), disagrees in part - no constitutional ineffective assistance doctrine

B. with regard to particular social group and immutable characteristics, makes distinction between current and former policemen

A.2. Konan v. Attorney General, 432 F.3d 497 (3^rd Cir. 2005) - upholds, but finds Board did not apply to case.

B. Ahmed v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 611 (7th Cir. 2003) - does not reject, but states that distinction "may have gone too far"

C. Sepulveda v. Gonzalez, 464 F.3d 770, 772 (7th Cir.2006) - cites with approval.

2. Khodagholian v. Ashcroft, 335 F.3d 1003 (9^th Cir. 2003) - cited with approval

A.. Vukmirovic v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 1247 (9^th Cir. 2004) - cited with approval

B. While membership in an organization, even one whidh engages in persecution, is not sufficient to bar one from relief as a persecutor of others, if one's action or inaction furthers that persecution in some way he would be barred from relief. It is the objective effect of an alien's actions which is controlling.

B2. Castaneda-Castillo v. Gonzales, 464 F.3d 347 (1^st Cir., September 29, 2006) - cites with approval

2. Lukwago v. Ashcroft, 329 F.3d 157 (3d Cir. 2003) cites with approval

3. Brucaj v. Ashcroft, 381F.3d 602 (7^th Cir. 2004) - cites with approval

4. Hamida v. Gonzales, 478 F. 3d 734 (6th Cir. 2007) - cited with approval

B. Foreign law is a matter to be proven by the party seeking to rely upon it

C. Finding of firm resettlement does not bar asylum, but is only factor to consider in exercising discretion

B. Abdille v.Ashcroft, 242 F.3d 477 (3d Cir. 2001) - followed (on issue of burden of proof in proving foreign law)

C. Diallo v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 687 (7^th Cir. 2004) - notes no longer good law under asylum statute

1. Adeyemo v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 558 (7^th Cir. 2004) - distinguishes where certified mail receipt bears illegible signature - that is not sufficient to create presumption of delivery to alien or responsible person

2. Chaidez v. Gonzales, 476 F. 3d 773 (9th Cir, 2007)-distinguishes where return receipt signed by someone unknown to respondent

1. Farquharson v. Ashcroft, 246 F.3d 1317 11^th Cir. 2001) - upholds

2. Sena v. Gonzales, 428 F.3d 50 (1^st Cir. 2005) - cites with approval

3. Vo v. Gonzales, 482 F. 3d 363 (5th Cir. 2007)-cites with approval

1. Rodriguez-Munoz v. Gonzales, 419 F.3d 245 (3d Cir. 2005) - cited with approval - crime waived for 212(c) can still bar cancellation as ag fel.

2. Munoz-Yepez v. Gonzales, 465 F.3d 347 (8^th Cir. August 30, 2006) - cites with approval.

3. De Hoyos v. Mukasey, 2008 WL 5120768 (5th Cir. 2008), extends holding to cases where prior relief granted was cancellation of removal

4. Bakarian v. Mukasey, 541 F.3d 775 (7th Cir. 2008), cites approvingly.

1. Zhao v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 265 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2001) - cites with approval

2. Li v. Mukasey,515 F. 3d 575 (6th Cir. 2008): cites with approval

B. MTR should not be granted unless new evidence could not have been discovered earlier by "due diligence"

A.1. Wang v. Ashcroft, 260 F.3d 448 (5^th Cir. 2001) - upholds

A.2. Sanusi v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 193 (2^nd Cir. 2006) - cites with approval

B. Krougliak v. INS, 289 F.3d 457 (7^th Cir. 2002) - cites with approval

2. Coronado-Durazo v. INS, 123 F.3d 1322 (9^th Cir. 1997) - distinguishes, where Az solicitation statute encompasses underlying offenses that are not drug offenses

B. where underlying offense is a crime involving moral turpitude, conspiracy or attempt to commit such crime is cimt

B. Knapik v. Ashcroft, 384 F.3d 84 (3d Cir. 2004) - agrees with, but distinguishes where crime involves recklessness, because acting recklessly is inconsistent with mens rea required for attempt

A. 212(c) waiver cannot cure 241(a)(2)(C) deportability for firearms conviction, even where conviction also falls under §212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) as a CIMT.

B. Matter of Meza is limited to question of eligibility for 212(c) by drug trafficking ag fel; does not alter general rule that deport ground must have comparable exclusion ground for 212(c) to apply.

A. An adopted child may not confer immigration benefits on a natural parent.

B. An adopted child may not confer immigration benefits on a biological sibling, as the common parent is no longer the parent of the adopted child for immigration purposes.

2. Farquharson v. Ashcroft, 246 F.3d 1317 11^th Cir. 2001) - cites with approval

1. Perez-Enriquez v. Gonzales, 411 F.3d 1079 (9^th Cir. 206/14/05) - accepts reasoning, though in different context

2. Perez-Enriquez v. Gonzales, 463 F.3d 1007 (9^th Cir. September 15, 2006) - upheld

3. Ruiz-Almanzar v. Ridge, 485 F. 3d 193 (2d Cir. 2007)-upheld, but clarified that an applicant for adjustment remains a deportable alien until their status is actually adjusted

2. Drax v. Reno, 338 F.3d 98 (2d Cir. 2003)- Generally cited with approval and applied

2. Omar v. INS, 298 F.3d 710 (8^th Cir. 2002) - cites with approval in finding that criminal vehicular homicide under Minn. law is a crime of violence

2. Amanfi v. Ashcroft, 328 F.3d 719 (3d Cir. 2003) - cited with approval, but finds Board did not properly apply

B. Crime is CIMT if accompanied by corrupt mind or vicious motive

B. Partyka v. Attorney General of the United States, 417 F.3d 408 (3d Cir. 2005) - cited generally with approval

Paripovic v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 240 (3d Cir. 2005) - in footnote, states that Burbano orders are entitled to deference

2. Abebe v. Gonzales, 432 F. 3d 1037 (9th Cir. 2005): follows, holding that where the BIA cites Burbano and does not express disagreement with any part of the IJ’s decision, the BIA adopts the IJ’s decision in its entirety.

3. Wala v. Mukasey, 511 F. 3d 102 (2d. Cir. 2007): follows

A. sentence is “actually imposed” where criminal court suspends the execution of a sentence; but not where the imposition of the sentence is suspended.

B. 212(c) will not waive deportability for a firearm offense even where the firearms offense is one of two or more crimes which may render alien inadmissible under INA §212(a)(10).

2. Ghounem v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 740 (8^th Cir. 2004) -distinguished, because strong presumption of delivery cannot be applied under later statute only requiring delivery by regular mail

3. Adeyemo v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 558 (7^th Cir. 2004) - distinguishes where certified mail receipt bears illegible signature - that is not sufficient to create presumption of delivery to alien or responsible person

4. Chaidez v. Gonzales, 476 F. 3d 773 (9th Cir. 2007)-distinguished presumption for service of hearing notice vs. OSC; found no presumption of effective service without signature of “responsible person” for OSCs

5. Sembiring v. Gonzales, 499 F. 3d 981 (9th Cir. 2007): distinguishes; applies weaker presumption service for OSC sent by regular mail (following Salta); lower burden to rebut, with “practical, commonsensical” test

6. Santana v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 506 F. 3d 274 (3rd Cir. 2007): distinguishes; adopts Salta and Sembiring holdings

2. Gerbier v. Holmes, 280 F.3d 297 (3d Cir. 2002) - accepts analysis (see also Barrett, 20 I&N Dec. 171, and Davis, 20 I&N Dec. 536, above)

2. Tokatly v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 613 (9^th Cir. 2004) - cited with approval, and followed

3. Conteh v. Gonzales, 461 F.3d 45 (1^st Cir., 2006) - cited with approval.

B. Membership in a clan can constitute membership in a particular social group

A.2. Huang v. INS, 436 F.3d 89 (2^nd Cir. 2006) - cites with approval but finds IJ and Board did not properly apply decision in this case

B.1. Hagi-Salad v. Ashcroft, 359 F.3d 1044 (8^th Cir. 2004) - cites generally with approval

B.2. Mohamed v. Ashcroft, 396 F.3d 999 (8^th Cir. 2005) - cites generally with approval

2. Abay v. Ashcroft, 368 F.3d 634 (6^th Cir. 2004) - cites with approval, and asylum granted where alien fears she will not be able to protect her daughter (also in proceedings) from the practice

3. Balogun v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 492 (7^th Cir. 2004) - distinguishes, because alien came here several times before first making her FGM asylum claim

4. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785 (9^th Cir. 2005) - approves, and finds part. social group could be defined as Somali tribe or all Somali women. Also,

presumption of well-founded fear cannot be rebutted because harm is ongoing

5. Niang v. Gonzales, 422 F.3d 1187 (10^th Cir. 2005) - cites with approval, but remands on question of credibility and govt ability to control

B. Board may deny MTR where regulatory requirements not met, or no prima facie showing of eligibility for relief sought

B. Kay v. Ashcroft, 387 F.3d 664 (7^th Cir. 2004) - cites with approval

2. Monjaraz-Munoz v. INS, 327 F.3d 892 (9^th Cir. 2003) cites with approval

3. Lo v. Ashcroft, 341 F.3d 934 (9^th Cir 2003) - cites no prejudice req. with approval

4. Aris v. Mukasey, 517 F. 3d 595 (2d Cir. 2008): cites with approval; finds Board failed to follow

B. persecution for "imputed" grounds can satisfy refugee definition

A.1. Velasquez-Valencia v. INS, 244 F.3d 48(1st Cir. 2001) - cites with approval

A.2. Sompotan v. Mukasey, — F.3d —, 2008 WL 2747030 (1st Cir. 2008)-cites favorably

B. Amanfi v. Ashcroft, 328 F.3d 719 (3d Cir. 2003) - cites with approval, but finds Bd. did not properly apply rule in case involving person people believed to be homosexual

2. Mardones v. McElroy, 197 F.3d 619 (2d Cir. 1999) - cited with approval

3. Azarte v. Ashcroft, 394 F.3d 1278 (9^th Cir. 2005) - rejects Shaar post-IIRIRA, holds that where MTR is filed within voluntary departure time, voluntary departure is tolled while Board considers motion

4. Barrios v. Attorney General, 399 F.3d 272 (3d Cir. 2005) - rejects, finds MTR filed within voluntary departure time constitutes "exceptional circumstance" to forgive failure to depart, even in pre-IIRIRA case

5. Sidikhouya v. Gonzales, 407 F.3d 950 (8^th Cir. 2005) - rejects post-IIRIRA, agreeing with Azarte, above

6. Kanivets v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 330 (3d Cir. 2005) - rejects post-IIRIRA, agreeing with Azarte, above

7. Banda-Ortiz v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 387 (5^th Cir. 2006) - cited with approval, rejects Azarte, above.

8. Ugokwe v. U.S. Attorney General, 453 F.3d 1325 (11^th Cir. 2006) - rejects post-IIRIRA, agreeing with Azarte, above

9. Dekoladenu v. Gonzales, 459 F.3d 500 (4^th Cir. 2006) - upheld. Rejects Azarte.

10. Naeem v. Gonzales, 469 F.3d 33 (1st Cir. 2006) - generally approves - questions continued vitality, but finds that motion to reopen filed outside of VD period but within 90 days does not toll voluntary departure.

11. Ilic-Lee v. Mukasey, 507 F. 3d 1044 (6th Cir. 2007): cites.

B. A showing of prejudice is not required to obtain relief from an in absentia order

A.2. Saakian v. INS, 252 F.3d 21(1^st Cir. 2001) - cites with approval, and distinguishes b/c Lozada satisfied on appeal to Board

A.3. Lu v. Ashcroft, 259 F.3d 127 (3d Cir. 2001) - cautions that failure to file bar complaint is not always fatal to ineffective assistance claim

B.1. Lo v. Ashcroft, 341 F.3d 934 (9^th Cir. 2003) - cites with approval

2. Li v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 171 (4^th Cir. 2005) - does not cite X-P-T-, but does not extend refugee status to alien forced to have IUD inserted - but cautions such insertion could under some facts be persecution

3. Huang v. U.S. INS, 421 F.3d 125 (2d Cir. 2005) - does not actually cite, but finds alien did not show well-founded fear based on two children born here (first one a girl)

4. Zheng v. Gonzales, 415 F.3d 995 (8^th Cir. 2005) - does not actually cite, but finds Board should have considered evidence indicating children born abroad are counted like those born in China

5. Yang v. U.S. Attorney General, 418 F.3d 1198 (11^th Cir. 2005) - finds having forcibly inserted IUD removed could be "other resistance to family planning policies

B. Immigration Judge and Service have role in providing evidence in asylum cases

A.2. Diallo v. INS, 232 F.3d 279 (2d Cir. 2000) - upholds corrob. req. (though remands on facts)

A.3. Kataria v. INS, 232 F.3d 1107 (9^th Cir. 2000) - reiterates its disapproval of S-M-J-

A.4. Abdulai v. INS, 239 F.3d 542 (3d Cir. 2001) - corrob. req. is not per se invalid (but remands on facts)

A.5. Kayembe v. Ashcroft, 334 F.3d 231(3d Cir. 2003) - cites with approval, upholding requirements

A.6. Miah v. Ashcroft, 346 F.3d 434 (3d Cir. 2003) - cites reqs. generally with approval

A.7. Dia v. Ashcroft, 353 F.3d 228 (3d Cir. 2003) - cites requirements for requiring corrob. with approval

A.8. Balogun v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 492 (7^th Cir. 2004) - cites generally with approval, but notes also Board's holding that corroboration required only as to "material facts"

A.9. Berishaj v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 314 (3d Cir. 2004) - cites with approval, but notes 3-part inquiry necessary for corroboration

A.10. El-Sheikh v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 643(8th Cir. 2004) - upholds, but emphasizes 3-part inquiry for requiring corrob.

A.11. Gontcharova v. Ashcroft, 384 F.3d 873 (7^th Cir. 2004) - upholds, but notes rule depends on reasonableness of expecting evidence

A.12. Dorosh v. Ashcroft, 398 F.3d 379 (6^th Cir. 2004) - upholds corrob req.

A.13. Dawoud v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 608 (7^th Cir. 2005) - cautions that credible asylum claim cannot be rejected solely for lac of corrob evidence

A.14. Kheireddine v. Gonzales, 427 F.3d 80 (1^st Cir. 2005) - cites with approval, and finds Board properly applied case

B. Mulanga v. Ashcroft, 349 F.3d 123 (3d Cir. 2003) - cites with approval

2. Manzoor v. INS, 254 F.3d 342 (1^st Cir. 2001) - cautions that burden is on INS, not alien, to show no country-wide threat, if past persecution has been shown

B. DOS Opinions owed considerable deference, absent contradictory evidence.

B. Manzoor v. INS, 254 F.3d 342 (1^st Cir. 2001) - appears to reject - says DOS opinions not binding

A. The seriousness of a crime (kidnapping) is not dispositive in proving persecution, which does not include all treatment which society finds unfair, unjust, unlawful or unconstitutional.

B. There may be many reasons for a kidnapping; the asylum applicant bears the burden of establishing that one motive bears a nexus to an enumerated ground.

2. De Sousa v. Reno, 190 F.3d 175 (3d Cir. 1999) - "assumes, without deciding," that decision is correct because both parties agreed

3. Turkhan v. Perryman, 188 F.3d 814 (7^th Cir. 1999) - upholds - no equal protection violation

4. Jurado-Gutierrez v. Greene, 190 F.3d 1135 (10^th Cir. 1999) - upholds - no equal protection violation

5. Almon v. Reno, 192 F.3d 28 (1^st Cir. 1999) - upholds - no equal protection violation

6. Domond v. INS, 244 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 2001) - reaches same conclusion (no equal protection violation), but does not cite Board case.

7. Servin-Espinoza v. Ashcroft, 309 F.3d 1193 - rejects reasoning, pursuant to U.S. v. Estrada-Torres, 179 F. 3d 776 (9^th Cir. 1999) (see above), and remands for 212(c) in limited category of cases

C-Y-Z-, 21 I&N Dec. 915 (1997)overruled, J-S-, 24 I&N Dec. 520 (A.G. 2008)

1. Zhao v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 265 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2001) - accepts, but finds precedent not properly applied here

2. Qiu v. Ashcroft, 329 F.3d 140 (2d Cir. 2003) - cited generally with approval

3. Jie Lin v. Ashcroft, 356 F.3d 1027 (9^th Cir. 2004), amended at 377 F.3d 1014 (2004) - cites with approval, raises question of extension to children

4. Ma v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 553 (9^th Cir. 2004) - extends holding to husbands whose traditional marriages are not recognized in China because underage

5. Chen v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 221 (3d Cir. 2004) - finds it reasonable to limit Board holding to married couples (rejecting Ma, above)

6. Qu v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1195 (9^th Cir. 2005) - upholds, as to both asylum and withholding

7. Zhang v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 531(5^th Cir. 2004) - finds it reasonable to limit Board holding to married couples (rejecting Ma, above)

8. Zhang v. Gonzales, 408 F.3d 1239 (9^th Cir. 2005) - finds NO presumption that child of sterilized alien qualifies for asylum (see Jie Lin, above), but based on facts, child could qualify.

9. Wang v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 134 (3d Cir. 2005) - finds it reasonable to not extend holding to children of sterilized alien

10. Huang v. U.S. INS, 421 F.3d 125 (2d Cir 2005) - does not actually cite, but finds alien did not show well-founded fear based on two children born here (first one a girl)

11. Zheng v. Gonzales, 415 F.3d 995 (8^th Cir. 2005) - does not actually cite, but finds Board should have considered evidence indicating children born abroad are counted like those born in China

12. Yuan v. U.S. Department of Justice, 416 F.3d 192 (2d Cir. 207/26/05) - declines to extend to parents of person subjected to coercive birth control

13. Zhang v. Gonzales, 434 F.3d 993 (7^th Cir. 1/19/06) - extends holding to husbands whose marriages are not recognized in China

14. Zhu v. Gonzales, 465 F.3d 316 (7^th Cir. September 29, 2006) - cites with approval. Does not extended refugee definition to unmarried partners.

15. Lin v. U.S. Dept. Of Justice, 494 F. 3d 296 (2d Cir. 2007) - overrules

B. Appeal or motion is deemed filed when received by the Board

Also see on need for exceptional circumstances, Wang v. Ashcroft, 260 F.3d 448 (5^th Cir. 2001)

A. 2. Johnson v. Ashcroft, 286 F.3d 696 (3d Cir. 2002) - cites with approval

A. 3. Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 2002 - cites with approval

A.4. Tamenut v. Mukasey, 521 F. 3d 1000 (8th Cir. 2008): defers to Board’s discretion; finds no jurisdiction to review.

B. Smith v. Connor, 250 F.3d 277 (5^th Cir. 4/25/01) - upholds

2. Iavorski v. INS, 232 F.3d 124 (2d Cir. 2000) - generally cited for Board's power to reopen sua sponte

1. Tineo v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 382 (3d Cir. 2003) - upholds

2. Malagon de Fuentes v. Gonzales, 462 F.3d 498(5^th Cir. 2006) - cites with approval

B. Use of false docs by asylum seeker for entry purposes does not necessarily show lack of credibility

A.2. Selami v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 621 (6^th Cir. 9/16/05) -agrees with reasoning

A.3. Borovikova v. U.S. Department of Justice, 435 F.3d 151 (2^nd Cir. 2006) - cites generally with approval

A.4. Niang v. Mukasey, 511 F. 3d 138 (2d Cir. 2007): distinguishes where record fails to establish that the applicant knows or has reason to suspect document is false.

B.1. Akinmade v. INS, 196 F.3d 951 (9^th ir. 1999) -agrees with concept of two classifications of false documents

B. 2.Dong v. Gonzales , 421 F.3d 573 (7^th Cir. 2005) - cites generally with approval

2. Lara-Ruiz v. INS, 241 F.3d 934 (7^th Cir. 2001)- finds no equal protection violation in allowing only non-lprs to get 212(h) relief

3. Moore v. Ashcroft, 251 F.3d 919 (11^th Cir. 2001) - does not cite Michel, but finds no equal protection violation

4. Lukowski v. INS, 279 F.3d 644 (8^th Cir. 2002) - accepts decision, finds no equal protection violation

5. Jankowski-Burczyk v. INS, 291 F.3d 172 (2d Cir. 2002) - accepts decision, finds no equal protection violation

6. DeLeon-Reynoso v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 633 (3d Cir. 2002) - accepts decision, finds no equal protection violation

7. Taniguchi v. Schultz, 303 F.3d 950 (9^th Cir. 8/23/02) - does not cite Michel, but finds no equal protection violation

2. Mohamed v. Ashcroft, 396 F.3d 999 (8^th Cir. 2005) - cites generally with approval

3. Kheireddine v. Gonzales, 427 F.3d 80 (1^st Cir. 2005) cites generally with approval

1. Aguilar-Solis v. INS, 168 F.3d 565 (1^st Cir. 1999) - generally cited for rule regarding family left behind

2. Rios v. Ashcroft, 287 F.3d 895 (9^th Cir. 2002) - Without citing A-E-M-, cautions that continuing safety of family members is a relevant factor in assessing fear, but not sufficient as basis for finding of no well-founded fear

3. Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182 (5^th Cir. 2004) - cites with approval, and states that holding is not limited to cases where persecutor operates regionally

4. Boukhtouchen v. Gonzales, 498 F. 3d 78 (1st Cir. 2007)-cites generally with approval

2. Diallo v. INS*, 232 F.3d 279 (2d Cir. 2000) - upholds corrob. req (though remands on facts)

3. Miah v. Ashcroft, 346 F.3d 434 (3d Cir. 2003) -cites generally with approval

4. Dorosh v. Ashcroft, 398 F.3d 379 (6^th Cir. 2004) - cites generally with approval

2. U.S. v. Chapa-Garza, 243 F.3d 92, reh. en banc denied (with dissent), 262 F.3d 479 (5^th Cir. 2001) - without citing Magallanes, calls reasoning into question

3. Bazan-Reyes v. INS, 256 F.3d 600 (7^th Cir. 2001) - rejects definition of crime of violence

4. Dalton v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 200 (2d Cir. 2001) - rejects definition of crime of violence

5. U.S. v Trinidad-Aquino, 259 F.3d 1140 (9th Cir. 2001) - in sentence enhancement case, finds DUI with injury to another not a crime of violence (does not actually cite Magallanes-Garcia)

6. Francis v. Reno, 269 F.3d 162 (3d Cir. 2001) - distinguished, because conviction here (under Pa. law) did not involve DUI

2. Voci v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 607 (3d Cir. 2005) - cites with approval and relies on

2. Celis-Castellano v. Ashcroft, 298 F.3d 888 (9th Cir. 2002) - cites generally - finds asthma attack 4 days before hearing did not excuse failure to appear

2. Celis-Castellano v. Ashcroft, 298 F.3d 888 (9th Cir. 2002) - cites generally, noting that here, no notice problems as in Singh (above) - asthma attack 4 days before hearing did not excuse failure to appear

2. Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153 (9^th Cir. 2002) - generally cited for rule that Board can reopen sua sponte to serve interests of justice

2. Lopez v. INS, 184 F.3d 1097 (9^th Cir. 1999) -without citing Lei, holds ineff. assistance of counsel can toll time limits for in absentia MTR

3. Iavorski v. INS, 232 F.3d 124 (2d Cir. 2000) - without citing Lei, holds ineff. assistance of counsel can toll time limits for in absentia MTR

4. Riley v. INS, 310 F.3d 1253 (10^th Cir. 2002) - without citing Lei, holds ineff. assistance of counsel can toll time limits for in absentia MTR

5. Borges v. Gonzales, 402 F.3d 398 (3d Cir. 2005) - holds ineff. assistance of counsel can toll time limits for in absentia MTR - distinguishes Bejar, above, saying only that time limit can be tolled, not that ineffective assistance is an exception to time limit

B. Deferred adjudication of guilt under Texas law where probation is imposed is a conviction for immigration purposes

B. Griffiths v. INS, 243 F.3d 45 (1^st Cir. 2001) - Board's holding a "permissible construction" of statute. "Guilty-filed" disposition under Mass. law can be a conviction for immigration purposes - but case remanded on facts.

B. Without discussion, applies IIRIRA's reinstatement of removal provisions § 241(a)(5) to alien who reentered prior to IIRIRA's effective date.

B. 1. Castro-Cortez, et al. v. Reno, 239 F.3d 1037(9^th Cir. 2001) - rejects application of the statute to such aliens

B. 2. Velasquez-Gabriel v. Crocetti, 263 F.3d 102 (4^th Cir. 2001)- finds 241(a)(5) does apply to aliens who reenter prior to statute's effective date (does not cite G-N-C-)

B. 3. Bejjani v. INS, 271 F.3d 670 (6^th Cir. 2001) - rejects application of statute to such aliens (cites G-N-C- in footnote, noting Board did not address issue)

B. Asylum applicant has burden to show new source of persecution if no longer well-founded fear from original source

A. 2. Brucaj v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 602 (7^th Cir. 2004) - cites with approval, but finds that decision did not set forth specific types of evidence necessary for humanitarian asylum claims

B.1. Hasalla v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 799 (8^th Cir. 2004) - cited with approval

B.2. Abrha v. Gonzales, 433 F.3d 1072 (8^th Cir. 2006) - cited with approval

B. cannot deny discretionary relief without receiving oral notice of consequences of failure to appear

A.2. Wu v. INS, 436 F.3d 157 (2^nd Cir. 2006) - cited with approval and applies to relief available due to change in law

B. Ordonez v. INS, 345 F.3d 777 (9^th Cir. 2003) - cited with approval

2. Lewis v. INS, 194 F.3d 539 (4^th Cir. 1999) - upholds

3. Bell v. Reno, 218 F.3d 86 (2d Cir. 2000) - rejects Board and 11^th and 4^th Circuits' legal analysis, but agrees with conclusion that alien is deportable as ag fel

2. Herrera-Inirio v. INS, 208 F.3d (1^st Cir. 2000) - upholds

3. Sandoval v. INS, 240 F.3d 577 (7^th Cir. 2001) - distinguishes because sentence modification here, not expungement (and notes Roldan has been "called into question")

4. Murillo-Espinoza v. INS, 261F.3d 771(9^th Cir. 2001) - upholds as "plausible" construction the Board's holding that state rehabilitative expungements will not be given effect (but see #1 above, for exception)

5. Vasquez-Velezmoro v. INS, 281 F.3d 693 (8th Cir. 2002) - upholds, and specifically declines to adopt reasoning of Lujan-Armendariz

6. Gill v. Ashcroft, 335 F.3d 574 (7^th Cir. 2003) - upholds, and specifically rejects Lujan-Armendariz (see #1 above)

7. Resendiz-Alcarez v. U.S. Attorney General, 383 F.3d 1262 (11^th Cir. 2004) - upholds

8. Cruz-Garza v. Ashcroft, 396 F.3d 1125 (10^th Cir. 2005) - upholds rationale, but finds conviction here was not a felony

1. Shivaraman v. Ashcroft, 360 F.3d 1142 (9^th Cir. 2004) - distinguishes, finding that alien admitted as lawful nonimmigrant who later adjusts should not have the later adjustment date used as his "admission" date in determining if crime involving moral turpitude was within 5 years of admission

2. Abdelqadar v. Gonzales, 413 F.3d 668 (7^th Cir. 2005) - rejects Board reasoning

3. Martinez v. Mukasey, 519 F. 3d 532 (5th Cir. 2008): rejects Board reasoning

2. Gonzalez-Torres, 213 F.3d 899 (5^th Cir. 2000) - upholds (stop-time rule constitutional)

3. Rivera-Jimenez v. INS, 214 F.3d 1213 (10^th Cir. 2000) - upholds Nolasco, but remands on facts re: brief, casual and innocent departure

4. Afolayan v. INS, 219 F.3d 784 (8^th Cir. 2000) - upholds

5. Ayoub v. INS, 222 F.3d 214 (5^th Cir. 2000) - upholds (characterizes Gonzalez-Torres, above, as dicta)

6. Angel-Ramos v. INS, 227 F.3d 942 (7^th Cir. 2000) - upholds

7. Ashki v. INS, 233 F.3d 913 (6^th Cir. 2000) - upholds

8. Rojas-Reyes v. INS, 235 F.3d 115 (2d Cir. 2000) - upholds

9. Bartoszewska-Zajac v. INS, 237 F.3d 710 (6^th Cir. 2001) - upholds, and rejects equal protection arguments

10. Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510 (9^th Cir. 2001) - upholds

11. Guadalupe-Cruz v. INS, 240 F.3d 1209 (9th Cir. 2001) - distinguished, because Immigration Judge incorrectly applied stop-time law before its effective date

12. Sad v. INS, 246 F.3d 811(6^th Cir. 2001) - upholds, and also rejects retroactivity and equal protection arguments

13, Pinho v. INS, 249 F.3d 183 (3d Cir. 2001) - upholds

14. See also Tefel v. Reno, 180 F.3d 1286 (11^th Cir. 1999) - without citing Nolasco, finds stop-time rule constitutional

1. Chong v. INS, 264 F.3d 378 (3d Cir. 2001) - cited with approval, and notes actual individual hearing on issue of PSC not required

2. Bosede v. Ashcroft, 309 F.3d 441 (7^th Cir. 2002) - cited generally with approval

3. Morales v. Gonzales, 478 F. 3d 972 (9th Cir. 2007)-upholds the criteria, but finds not followed in this case

1. Henry v. Ashcroft, 175 F.Supp. 2d 688 (S.D.N.Y 2001) - rejects, holding application of new IIRIRA provision to offense committed pre-IIRIRIA has improper retroactive effect

2. Sinotes-Cruz v. Gonzales, 468 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2006) - rejects.

3. Reid v. Gonzales, 478 F. 3d 510 (2d Cir 2007) -follows

1. Jaggernauth v. U.S. Attorney General, 432 F.3d 1346 (11^th Cir. 2005) - cited with approval

2. Larin-Ulloa v. Gonzales, 462 F.3d 456 (5^thCir. 2006) -cites with approval.

1. Ramos v. INS, 246 F.3d 1264 (9^th Cir. 2001) (8^th Cir. 7/16/04) - cites with approval

2. Medina v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 628 (2d Cir. 2005) - upholds

1. Chanmouny v. Ashcroft, 376 F.3d 810 (8^th Cir. 2004) - defin. cited generally with approval

2. Obasohan v. U. S. Att’y Gen., 479 F. 3d 785 (11th Cir. 2007)-cited with approval, but finds not followed where IJ relied on PSI and not actual conviction to determine ag fel

B. In absentia order becomes final when alien waives appeal or appeal time expires

A.2. Wang v. Ashcroft, 260 F.3d 448 (5^th Cir. 2001) - upholds and applies to case

A.3. Krougliak v. INS, 289 F.3d 457 (7^th Cir. 2002) - upholds

B. Kay v. Ashcroft, 387 F.3d 664 (7^th Circuit. 2004) - cites with approval

2. Guerrero-Perez v. INS, 242 F.3d 727(7^th Cir. 2001) - upholds (conviction was for "criminal sexual abuse" under Illinois law)

3. Emile v. INS, 244 F.3d 183 (1^st Cir. 2001) - cites with approval (conviction was for indecent assault and battery on a child under 14 under Mass. law)

4. Lara-Ruiz v. INS, 241 F.3d 934 (7^th Cir. 2001) - cites with approval

5. Bahar v. Ashcroft, 264 F.3d 1309 (11^th Cir. 2001) -Cites with approval (conviction in N.C. for crime of taking indecent liberties with a minor)

6. Gattem v. Gonzales, 412 F.3d 758 (7^th Cir. 2005) - cites with approval (Ill conviction for soliciting a minor)

7. Loeza-Dominguez v. Gonzales, 428 F.3d 1156 (8^th Cir. 2005) - cites with approval Board's "broad construction" of term "child abuse"

2. U.S. v. Chapa-Garza, 243 F.3d 921, reh. en banc denied (with dissent), 262 F.3d 479 (5^th Cir. 2001) - without citing Puente, rejects holding

3. Bazan-Reyes v. INS, 256 F.3d 600 (7^th Cir. 2001) - rejects

4. Dalton v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 200 (2d Cir. 2001) - rejects definition of crime of violence

5. U.S. v Trinidad-Aquino, 259 F.3d 1140 (9^th Cir. 2001) - in sentence enhancement case, finds DUI with injury to another not a crime of violence (does not actually cite Puente)

A. Arizona offense of aggravated DUI is a CIMT where the person knew he was prohibited from driving

B. Simple DUI, without more, is not a CIMT

A. Hernandez-Martinez v. Ashcroft, 329 F.3d 1117 (9^th Cir. 2003) - rejects, finding statute is divisible and not all conduct covered by the statute is a CIMT

B. Knapik v. Ashcroft, 384 F.3d 84 (3d Cir. 2004) - agrees with

2. McBride v. INS, 238 F.3d 371(5^th Cir. 2001) - upholds as reasonable interpretation

3. Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510 (9^th Cir. 2001) - upholds

4. Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262 (11^th Cir. 2001) - upholds

5. Okeke v. Gonzales, 407 F.3d 585 (3d Cir. 2005) - distinguishes, in case where alien departed U.S. after charging document issued and bases continuous physical presence on time after his return

1.Zheng v. Ashcroft, 332 F.3d 1186 (9^th Cir. 2003) - rejects, and holds that CAT's "acquiescence" requirement only requires that the govt. have "awareness" of the torture, not actual knowledge or willful acceptance of it

2. Khouzam v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 161 (2nd Cir. 2004) - rejects reasoning, agrees with Zheng

3. Amir v. Gonzales, 467 F.3d 921 (6th Cir. 2006) - rejects reasoning

4. Silva-Rengifo v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 473 F. 3d 58 (3d Cir. 2007)-rejects reasoning, agrees with Zheng and Khouzam

5. Ilic-Lee v. Mukasey, 507 F. 3d 1044 (6th Cir. 2007): cites

2. Lopez-Elias v. Reno, 209 F.3d 788 (5^th Cir. 2000) -decided a month before Perez, reaches same conclusion

Jaggernauth v. U.S. Attorney General, 432 F.3d 1346 (11^th Cir. 2005) - cited with approval but finds conviction not an ag fel

2. Johnson v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 164 (2d Cir. 2004) - generally cited, with approval

2. Hernandez-Mancilla v. INS, 246 F.3d 1002 (7^th Cir. 2001) - generally upholds, but reads "theft offense" somewhat more broadly (court dealt with Ill. crime of possession of stolen vehicle)

Alien is ineligible for 212(c) if served more than 5 years in prison, even if AEDPA section 440(d) does not apply

2. Davis v. Ashcroft, 2003 WL 289624 (S.D.N.Y. 2/10/03) affirmed (but not reported in F.Supp. 2d)

2. Nehme v. INS, 252 F.3d 415 (5^th Cir. 2001) - without citing, reaches same conclusion

3. Ali v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 722 (7^th Cir. 2005) - follows

1. Dominguez v. INS, 284 F.3d 1258 (11^th Cir. 2002) - without citing Board case, calls holding into question - notice to last address formally provided is sufficient

2. Kohli v. Gonzales, 473 F. 3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2007): followed

A. A state or foreign offense may qualify as an agg fel as an offense described in a federal statute, even if it lacks the jurisdictional element of the federal statute.

B. Possession of a firearm by a felon under California law is an agg fel.

1. Malhi v. INS, 336 F.3d 989 (9^th Cir. 2003) - cited with approval, upholding denial of motion for failure to make prima facie showing of valid marriage

2. Conteh v. Gonzales, 461 F.3d 45 (1^st Cir., 2006) - cites with approval.

3. Sarr v. Gonzales, 485 F. 3d 354 (6th Cir. 2007): interprets as a MTR may be granted when certain factors are present, but does not necessarily hold that motion must be denied in the absence of any one factor.

4. Melnitsenko v. Mukasey, 517 F. 3d 42 (2d Cir. 2008): modifies holding in that Board cannot deny motion based solely on the fact of the DHS’s objection; if Board denies on the merits of such objection, it must provide adequate reasoning.

5. Ahmed v. Mukasey, 2008 WL 4925056 (9th Cir. 2008) clarifies/modifies Board cannot solely deny motion due to DHS opposition.

B. Ag. fels. involving drug trafficking are presumptively particularly serious crimes

A.2. Khouzam v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 161 (2d Cir. 2004) - disapproves of requirement of official "consent or approval" of torture

B. 1. Ali v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 722 (7^th Cir. 2005) - applies presumption, but remands to give alien chance to rebut

B.2.: Lavira v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 478 F. 3d 158 (3rd Cir. 2007): follows, but finds likely factual error by IJ.

B.3. Miguel-Miguel v. Gonzales, 500 F. 3d 941 (9th Cir. 2007)- upholds presumption, but finds error in retroactive application by BIA; remands.

B. Torture must be by or with consent or acquiescence of public official who has custody or physical control of victim

C. Detaining returning criminals is lawful sanction as Haiti has right to protect its citizens from criminals

D. Torture must be intentionally inflicted

A.2. Saint Fort v. Ashcroft, 223 F.Supp.2d 343 (D. Mass. 2002) - distinguishes on facts, finding Board did not consider evidence presented

A.3. Elien v Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 392 (1^st Cir. 2004) - upholds generally, but notes that respondent had not shown that torture is widespread in Haitian prisons

A.4. Cadet v. Bulger, 377 F.3d 1173 (11^th Cir. 2004) - upholds

A.4. Khouzam v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 161 (2d Cir. 2004) - distinguishes, because Board has found widespread torture in Egypt's prison (and warns that J-E- was cited by the Board in this case for a broader, and erroneous, proposition)

A.5. Alemu v. Gonzales, 403 F.3d 572 (8^th Cir. 2005) - cites generally with approval

A.6. Theagene v. Gonzales, 411 F.3d 1107 (9^th Cir. 2005) - upholds as reasonable interpretation

B. Azanor v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1013 (9^th Cir. 2004) - rejects holding that public official must have custody or physical control of victim

B.2. Morales v. Gonzales, 478 F. 3d 972 (9th Cir. 2007)-rejects reasoning, follows Azanor.

C.1. Elien v Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 392 (1^st Cir. 2004) - upheld (but notes indefinite detention might not be lawful)

C.2. Cadet v. Bulger, 377 F.3d 1173 (11^th Cir. 2004) - upholds (even if indefinite detention)

D.1. Alemu v. Gonzales, 403 F.3d 572 (8^th Cir. 2005) - cites generally with approval

A-D. Auguste v. Ridge, 395 F.3d 123 (3d Cir. 2005) - Upholds all parts of J-E-and finds part of Zubeda, above, dicta

A, D: Lavira v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 478 F. 3d 158 (3rd Cir. 2007): follows, citing Auguste, but distinguishes where prison conditions intentionally used to inflict pain and suffering on individual applicant.

2. U.S. v. Lucio-Lucio, 347 F.3d 1202 (10^th Cir. 2003) - cites with approval

3. Leocal v. Ashcroft, 125 S. Ct. 377 (2004) - reserves question of DUI as crime of violence where statute requires proof of reckless conduct, but finds DUI that causes serious bodily injury is not a crime of violence

1. Jean v. Gonzales*, 452 F.3d 392, 396 (5th Cir.2006) - affirms.

2. Ali v. Achim, 468 F.3d 462 (7th Cir. 2006) - upholds.

3. Rivas-Gomez v. Gonzales, 441 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir.2006) - upholds.

1. Cazarez-Gutierrez v. Ashcroft, 382 F.3d 905 (9^th Cir. 2004) - cites with approval, and follows 2d and 3d Circuits in finding state felony drug poss conviction that would be misd under federal law is not ag fel

2. Liao v. Rabbett, 398 F.3d 389 (6^th Cir. 2005) - cites generally, and finds felony drug conviction not ag fel where not punishable under state law by imprisonment for more than 1 year

3. Tostado v. Carlson, 437 F.3d 706 (8^th Cir. 2006) - cites generally, and finds Illinois conviction that is felony under state law but not federal law is ag fel for immigration purposes

4. Berhe v. Gonzales, 464 F.3d 74 (1^st Cir. September 26, 2006) - cites with approval.

5. 1.Lopez v. Gonzales, 549 U.S. 47, (2006) - clarifies, adopts hypothetical federal felony approach - federal state offense that is a felony under state law but a misdemeanor under the Controlled Substances Act [CSA] is not a "felony punishable under the CSA" and therefore not an aggravated felony within the meaning of section 101(a)(43)(B) of the Act.

2. Smith v. Gonzales, 468 F.3d 272 (5th Cir. 2006), follows hypothetical federal felony approach

2. Mirales-Valdez v. Ashcroft, 349 F.3d 213 (5^th Cir. 2003) - upheld

3. Palomino v. Ashcroft, 354 F.3d 942 (8^th Cir. 2004) - upheld

4. Morales-Morales v. Ashcroft, 384 F.3d 418 (7^th Cir. 2004) - distinguished, where alien was simply turned back at the border

5. Ortiz-Cornejo v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 610 (8^th Cir. 2005) - distinguished, where alien was simply turned back at the border

6. Mendez-Reyes v. Attorney General of the United States, 428 F.3d 187 (3d Cir. 2005) - agrees with, and applies where alien got permission to withdraw application for admission to U.S.

7. Ibarra-Flores v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 614 (9^th Cir. 2006) - distinguished

2. Flores v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 666, (7^th Cir. 2003) - rejects, and finds Indiana battery conviction not a crime of violence

3. Singh v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1228 (9^th Cir. 2004) - distinguishes because Martin dealt with state stature that required intent to inflict physical injury

1. Rafiyev v. Mukasey, 536 F.3d 853 (8th cir. 2008), disagrees in part - no Fifth Amend. right to effective counsel

2. .Afawni v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 788 (4th Cir. 2008), disagrees in part - no constitutional ineffective assistance doctrine

3. Magala v. Gonzales, 434 F.3d 523 (7th Cir. 2005), disagrees in part - no constitutional ineffective assistance doctrine

2. Salim v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 307 (3d Cir. 2003) - agrees with holding

3. Sebastian-Soler v. U.S. Attorney General, 409 F.3d 1280 (11^th Cir. 2005) - agrees with

4. Marquez-Almanzar v. INS, 418 F.3d 210 (2d Cir. 2005) - agrees with

5. Abou-Haider v. Gonzales, 437 F.3d 206 (1^st Cir. 2006) - agrees with holding

2. Cao v. U.S. Department of Justice, 421F.3d 149 (2d Cir. 2005) - cites with approval

3. Zhang v. Gonzales, 434 F.3d 993 (7^th Cir. 2006) - extends holding to man whose wife was forced to have abortion, even where marriage was not recognized in China, and couple is no longer together

1. Pickering v. Gonzales,* 465 F.3d 263 (6^th Cir. 2006), agrees with holding but reverses because Board erroneously evaluated evidence.

2. Ali v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 722 (7^th Cir. 2005) - finds Board's construction reasonable and defers to it

3. Rumierz v. Gonzales, 456 F.3d 31 (1^st Cir. August 3, 2006) - cites with approval

4. Cardoso-Tlaseca v. Gonzales, 460 F.3d 1102, 1107 (9th Cir.2006) - follows

5. Puello v. BCIS, 511 F. 3d 324 (2d Cir. 2007): cites with approval

6. Saleh v. Gonzales, 495 F.3d 17 (2d Cir. 2007) follows as reasonable.

1. Caroleo v. Gonzales, 476 F. 3d 158 (3d Cir. 2007)-cites with approval

2. Avilez-Granados v. Gonzales, 481 F. 3d 869 (5th Cir. 2007)-follows

3. Vo v. Gonzales, 482 F. 3d 363 (5th Cir. 2007)-cites with approval

4. Blake v. Carbone, 489 F. 3d 88 (2d Cir. 2007): reversed. Rejected Board’s “similar language” approach to determining statutory counterpart; holds if offense would render an LPR excludable, than 212(c) is available in deportation proceedings.

1. Abdelqadar v. Gonzales, 413 F.3d 668 (7^th Cir. 2005) - does not cite Shanu (which was decided shortly before court decision), but rejects reasoning

2. *Aremu v. DHS, 450 F.3d 578 (4th Cir. 2006): reversed.   Rejects Board’s reasoning that “adjustment of status” can constitute an admission where a prior admission occurred.

1. Kim v. Gonzales, 468 F.3d 58 (1st Cir. 2006) - cites with approval.

2. Caroleo v. Gonzales, 476 F. 3d 158 (3d Cir. 2007) -cites with approval

3. Dalombo Fontes v. Gonzales, 483 F. 3d 115 (1st Cir. 2007): cites with approval

4. Brieva-Perez v. Gonzales, 482 F. 3d 356 (5th Cir. 2007): affirmed;

5. Blake v. Carbone*, 489 F. 3d 88 (2d Cir. 2007): rejects Board’s “similar language” analysis to determine 212(c) eligibility in deportation proceedings

6. Thap v. Mukasey, 2008 WL 4568361 (6th Cir. 2008), follows

1. Yusopov v. Atty. Gen., 518 F. 3d 185 (3d Cir. Mar. 14, 2008): rejects latter interpretation–“may pose a danger” not found consistent with statutory language “is a danger”

2. Malkandi v. Mukasey, 2008 WL 4276912 (9th Cir. 2008), rejects in part (finds alien must “actually” pose a danger rather than “may”).

2. Reyes-Vasquez v. Gonzales, 395 F.3d 903 (8^th Cir. 2005) - without citing,

agrees with, where alien was simply turned back at the border

3. Tapia v. Gonzales,430 F.3d 993 (9^th Cir. 2005) - cites generally, may go further, indicating break in presence occurs where there is formal agreement with the govt where terms of departure specified

4. Ibarra-Flores v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 614 (9^th Cir. 2006) - distinguished

1. Perez-Vargas v. Gonzales*, 478 F. 3d 191 (4th Cir. 2007): reverses, holds IJs have such jurisdiction

2. Sung v. Keisler, 505 F. 3d 372 (5th Cir. 2007): without citing, follows Perez-Vargas v. Gonzales holding of 4th Cir. and finds IJ has jurisdiction over §204(j) determinations

1. Romanishyn v. Atty. Gen'l of U.S., 455 F.3d 175, 185 (3d Cir.2006) - upholds.

2. Kaganovich v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 894 (9th Cir. 2006 - upholds.

Torres-Garcia, 23 I&N Dec. 866 (2006)

A. An alien who reenters the U.S. after removal is inadmissible under INA section 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(II), even where s/he obtained permission to reapply for admission prior to the illegal reentry.

B. One barred under such section is ineligible for a waiver until 10 yrs. from the last departure from the U.S.

1. Ramirez-Canales v. Mukasey, 517 F. 3d 904 (6th Cir. 2008): cites favorably

2. Delgado v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. 2008), accords deference

A. When the BIA remands for completion of background checks and new info that may affect eligibility is revealed, the IJ has discretion as to whether to conduct additional hearings before entering order.

B. If checks reveal no new info after remand, IJ should enter order granting relief.

1. Chen v. U.S. Dept. of Justice,468 F.3d 109 (2nd Cir. 2006) - distinguished, relying on documents submitted by alien and documents from China submitted in another case.

2. Yu v. U.S. Att’y. Gen., 513 F. 3d 346 (3d. Cir. 2008): follows

3. Huang v. Mukasey, 523 F. 3d 640 (6th Cir. 2008)-cites favorably

1. Castillo-Arias v. U.S. Attorney General,* 446 F.3d 1190 (11^th Cir. 2006) - affirmed

2. Pavlyk v. Gonzales, 469 F.3d 1082
(7th Cir., December 4, 2006) - cites with approval.

3. Ucelo-Gomez v. Mukasey, 509 F. 3d 70 (2d Cir. 2007): follows

4. Malonga v. Mukasey, 2008 WL 4763453 (8th Cir. 2008), cites with approval

A. An alien’s conviction for domestic battery in violation of sections 242 and 243(e)(1) of the California Penal Code does not qualify categorically as a conviction for a “crime involving moral turpitude” within the meaning of section 237(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii) (2000).

B. In removal proceedings arising within the jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the offense of domestic battery in violation of sections 242 and 243(e)(1) of the California Penal Code does not presently qualify categorically as a “crime of violence” under 18 U.S.C. §§ 16 (2000), such that it may be considered a “crime of domestic violence” under section 237(a)(2)(E)(i) of the Act.

Galeana-Mendoza v. Gonzales, 465-F.3d 1054 C.A.9,2006 - cites with approval.

a. Galeana-Mendoza v. Gonzales, 465 F.3d 1054 (9th Cir. 2006) - follows.

1. Chen v. U.S. Att’y Gen’l, 491 F. 3d 100 (3d Cir. 2007)-follows as reasonable;

2. Lin v. U.S. Dept. Of Justice, 494 F. 3d 296 (2d Cir. 2007)-overrules

3. Yang v. U.S. Att’y Gen’l, 494 F. 3d 1311 (11th Cir. 2007)-affirmed

1.Ucelo-Gomez v. Mukasey*, 509 F. 3d 70 (2d Cir. 2007): affirmed

2. Arteaga v. Mukasey, 511F. 3d 940 (9th Cir. 2007): followed

3. Davila-Mejia v. Mukasey, — F.3d —, 2008 WL 2630085 (8th Cir. 2008)-follows

A. BIA lacks authority to apply equitable exception to avoid penalty for failing to depart per INA § 240B(d)(1).

B. No failure to depart where alien unaware of VD order or physically unable to depart.

A. Matter of Cruz (15 I&N Dec. 236) reaffirmed.

B. Adjudication of naturalization petition by DHS while removal proceedings are pending is not an affirmative communication of prima facie naturalization eligibility.

A. An abortion is deemed forced by threatened harm where such harm, if carried out, would be severe enough to constitute persecution.

B. Severe nonphysical forms of harm may constitute persecution.

A. Zhu v. Gonzales, 493 F. 3d 588 (5th Cir. 2007)-questions whether holding is overly narrow, but does not need to resolve issue as harm suffered falls satisfied Board’s interpretation.

B.1. Chen v. Gonzales, 489 F. 3d 861 (7th Cir. 2007)-cites;

B.2. Makatengkeng v. Gonzales, 495 F. 3d 876 (8th Cir. 2007)-ct. stated it may revisit standard in proper case, but not necessary here, as claimed harm clearly fell short of persecution.

B.3. Lin v. Mukasey, 532 F. 3d 596, 2008 (7th Cir. 2008)-cites

B.4. Vicente-Elias v. Mukasey, 532 F. 3d 1086, (10th Cir. 2008)-cites favorably

(1) Evidence did not establish a Chinese government policy of forced sterilization for second child born abroad.

(2) Although some sanctions may apply for second births abroad, evidence did not establish these would rise to the level of persecution.

1. Huang v. Mukasey, 523 F. 3d 640 (6th Cir. 2008)-cites favorably

2. Zheng v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 70 (1st Cir. 2008), cited favorably

3. Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138 (2d Cir. 2008), upheld

1. Parussimova v. Mukasey, 2009 WL 161220 (9th Cir. 2009)-follows reasoning

2. Singh v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2008), cited positively

1. Augustin v. Atty. Gen., 520 F. 3d 264 (3d Cir. 2008): upholds

1. Huang v. Mukasey, 523 F.3d 640 (6th Cir. 2008)-cites favorably

2. Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138 (2d Cir. 2008), upheld

Alien seeking to establish 245(i) eligibility based on grandfathered marriage petition must prove that the marriage was bona fide at its inception in order to show it was “meritorious in fact.” 

1. Huarcaya v. Mukasey, 2008 WL 5191771 (2d Cir. 2008), accorded deference

2. Ogundipe v. Mukasey, 541 F.3d 257 (4th Cir. 2008), cited positively

1. Oforji v. Ashcroft, 354 F.3d 609 (7th Cir. 2003) - reaches same conclusion, without citing (predates A-K-)

2. Abay v. Ashcroft, 368 F. 3d 634 (6th Cir. 2004)-without citing (predates A-K-), disagrees, finding mother established well-founded fear in her own right based on prospective harm to daughter

3. Niang v. Gonzales, 492 F.3d 505 (4th Cir. 2007) - same

4. Gumaneh v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d 785 (8th Cir. 2008), cited with approval

5. Kechichian v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d 15 (1st Cir. 2008), cited with approval

A-T-, 24 I&N 296 (2007),vacated, A-T-, 24 I&N Dec. 617 (A.G. 2008)

A. Because FGM is performed only once, there is no future fear of persecution after the procedure.

B. FGM does not constitute “continuing persecution” (distinguished from sterilization)

A.1. Hassan v. Gonzales, 484 F. 3d 513 (8th Cir. 2008)-without citing (predates A-T-), disagrees with; finds IJ failed to consider other types of mistreatment re future fear

A.2. Bah v. Mukasey, 529 F. 3d 99 (2d Cir. 2008)- overrules, finding the BIA erred in concluding that FGM is a “one-time” act, and in failing to consider other types of future persecution.

Delgado v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 1017 (9th Cir. 2008), accorded deference

Anaya-Ortiz v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir. 2009) Deference accorded to Board's determination re evidence which can show psc.

1. Chen v. Mukasey, 524 F. 3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2008)-defers to as reasonable interpretation

2. Wei v. Mukasey, 545 F.3d 1248 (10th Cir. 2008), follows

3. Zhang v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 851 (6th Cir. 2008), follows

4. Jin v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 143 (2d Cir. 2008), follows

5. Liu v. Att'y Gen., 555 F.3d 145 (3d Cir.2009), upheld.

A. To be barred under INA section 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(I), an alien must depart the U.S. after accruing more than 1 year of unlawful presence, and then reenter (or attempt to) w/o being admitted.

B. One who is inadmissible under such section is not eligible for section 245(i) adjustment of status.

1. Ramirez-Canales v. Mukasey, 517 F. 3d 904 (6th Cir. 2008): follows, granting deference to the Board’s interpretation.

2. Mora v. Mukasey, 2008 WL 5220296 (2d Cir. 2008), accorded deference.

A. Controlling Circuit case law will determine whether a state drug conviction corresponds to the Federal felony of “recidivist possession,” and is thus an aggravated felony.

B. Absent controlling authority, recidivist status must be admitted by the alien or determined by the judge or jury for a state simple possession conviction to constitute an aggravated felony.

B.1. Rashid v. Mukasey, 531 F. 3d 438, (6th Cir. 2008)-cites favorably

B.2. Fernandez v. Mukasey, 544 F. 3d 862 (7th Cir. 2008), rejects reasoning

B3. Alsol v. Mukasey, 2008 WL 4890162 (2d Cir. 2008), follows

Rashid v. Mukasey, 531 F. 3d 438, (6th Cir. 2008)-distinguishes, as unlike Thomas, conviction occurred in a circuit in which a controlling precedent existed relating to recidivist drug offenders