Court Decisions Relating to Board Precedents

Board Cite

Board Holding

Court Response

1. Lockhart v. Napolitano,2009 WL 217392 (6th Cir. 2009), declines to follow

2. Taing v. Napolitano, 567 F.3d 19 (1st Cir. 2009), declines to follow;

3. Freeman v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 1031 (9th Cir. 2006), contrary conclusion;

4. Robinson v. Napolitano, 554 F.3d 358, 364 (3d Cir. 2009) (finding that one’s status as a “spouse” is determined not at the time a visa petition is filed, but rather at the time it is adjudicated).

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

4. Gonzalez v. Sec. Dep’t of Homeland Sec.,  2012 WL 898609 (3d Cir. 2012) – discusses

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

A. INA 101(a)(10) and 101(a)(15)(D) must be read together when construing the crewman provision of INA 245(c)

B. The purpose of the crewmen provisions of INA 245 and former INA 244(f) is to prevent seamen using their relatively easy access to the US to enter and reside permanently.

A1. Gonzalez v. Holder, 2012 WL 833156 (1st Cir. 2012) - cites

B1. Gonzalez v. Holder, 2012 WL 833156 (1st Cir. 2012) - cites favorably

B. Moral turpitude can lie in criminally reckless conduct

B. 1. Knapik v. Ashcroft, 384 F.3d 84 (3d Cir. 2004) - upholds, finding conviction for attempted reckless endangerment is cimt

B. 2. Totimeh v. Attorney General, 2012 WL 89580 (3rd Cir. 2012) - cites

B.3. Idy v. Holder, 2012 WL 975567 (1st Cir. 2012) – Accords Chevron deference

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

2. Zheng v. Holder, 2011 WL 1709849 (9th Cir. 2011) - cited favorably;

3. Paulo v. Holder, 2011 WL 1663572 (9th Cir. 2011) - cited favorably

Chete Juarez v. Ashcroft, 376 F.3d 944 (9th Cir. 2004) - cited generally with approval

2. Singh v. Holder, 591 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2010)- cited favorably.

Johnson v. Ashcroft, 286 F.3d 696 (3d Cir. 2002) - agrees with and interprets to require that for remand to be limited, Board must specifically retain jurisdiction and limit remand to specific purpose

2. Fernandes v. Holder, 619 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2010)-agrees with Board holding

3. Duhaney v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 621 F.3d 340 (3d Cir. 2010)-cites with approval

A. Forging immigration documents is a crime involving moral turpitude

B. Moral turpitude refers to conduct which is morally reprehensible and intrinsically wrong, the essence of which is an evil or malicious intent.

A1. Omagah v. Ashcroft, 288 F.3d 254 (5th Cir. 2002) - finds decision reasonable

B1. Totimeh v. Attorney General, 2012 WL 89580 (3rd Cir. 2012) - cites

1. Martinez-Camargo v. INS, 282 F.3d 487 (7th Cir. 2002)- upholds

2. Ward v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2011 WL 181485 (7th Cir. 2011) - cites favorably

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.

5. Ikharo v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 3001756 (6th Cir. 2010) - cited favorably.

6. Arbid v. Holder, 2012 WL 1089595 (9th Cir. 2012) – cites favorably

1. Brandao v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 2011 WL 3584317 (3d Cir. 2011) – follows.

1. Brandao v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 2011 WL 3584317 (3d Cir. 2011) – cites favorably.

2. Anderson v. Holder, 2012 WL 762980 (9th Cir. 2012) - follows

A. Board's function is to review, not create, the record, and it is not required to receive new evidence on appeal

B. Under collateral estoppel, a prior denaturalization judgment conclusively establishes the facts of a subsequent deportation proceeding and precludes reconsideration of issues of law. This doctrine applies if 1) the deportation proceeding arises from identical facts, and 2) the controlling law has not changed.

A2. Ordonez v. INS, 345 F.3d 777 (9th Cir. 2003) - rejects

B1. Oyeniran v. Holder, 2012 WL 695646 (9th Cir. 2012) - follows

B. Asylum applicant must show country-wide persecution

A.1. Lukwago v. Ashcroft, 329 F.3d 157 (3d Cir. 2003) cites generally with approval

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

A.11. Al-Ghorbani v. Holder, —F.3d—; 2009 WL 3718297 (6th Cir. 2009)-cites favorably

A.12. Perdomo v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 2721524 (9th Cir. 2010)- cited.

A.13. 629 F.3d 440 (4th Cir. 2011) - accords deference

A.14. Crespin-Valladares v. Holder, 2011 WL 546531 (4th Cir. 2011) - cites favorably, but remands where IJ failed to apply correctly.

A.15. Garcia v. Att’y Gen., 2011 WL 5903780 (3d Cir. 2011) – cites, discusses

A.16. Gaitan v. Holder, 2012 WL 653042 (8th Cir. 2012) - cites

A. 17. Rivera-Barrientos v. Holder, 2012 WL 75974 (10th Cir 2012) - cites with approval

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 conscription 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. Retuta v. Holder, 591 F.3d 1181 (9th Cir. 2010)-No Chevron deference where Ozkok decision predated INA § 101(a)(48) definition of conviction, and did not address particular situation presented in Retuta

2.Siddiqui v. Holder, 2012 WL 130447 (7th Cir. 2012)--recognizes that it was superseded by IIRIRA and 22 I&N Dec. 224 (BIA 1998)

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

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

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

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

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

6. Stroe v. INS, 256 F.3d 498 (7th 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 (9th Cir. 2002) - Lozada reqs. need not always be "rigidly applied."

9. Melkonian v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 1061(9th 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

27. Tamang v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 917202 (9th Cir. 2010)-follows

28. Viridiana v. Holder, 630 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2011) - cites favorably, but held that IJ misapplied where preparer was non-attorney.

29. Jiang v. Holder, 2011 WL 923279 (7th Cir. 2011) - reaffirms validity and need for strict compliance w/ requirements

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

A.1. Estrada-Escobar v. Ashcroft, 376 F.3d 1042 (10th Cir. 2004) - upholds, and finds rationale applies to terrorist activities, including those of Shining Path.

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

A.3. Castenada-Castillo v. Holder, 2011 WL 1049777 (1st Cir. 2011) - upholds, but interprets to apply only to dangers faced “in the line of duty”

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 (9th Cir. 2003) - cited with approval

Activity related to civil war is not persecution unless the harm is shown to have been inflicted to overcome a belief or characteristic

B. While membership in an organization, even one which 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.

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

B2. Castaneda-Castillo v. Gonzales, 464 F.3d 347 (1st 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 (7th Cir. 2004) - cites with approval

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

5. Sheriff v. Att’y Gen., —F.3d—; 2009 WL 4042936 (3d Cir. 2009)-cited and discussed.

6. Hasan v. Holder, 2012 WL 762961 (1st Cir. 2012) - rejects the respondent's argument which was based on Chen

7. Mendoza-Pablo v. Holder, 2012 WL 373085 (9th Cir 2012) - notes the IJ's reliance on the definition of "persecution" in Chen

Abdulai v. INS, 239 F.3d 542 (3d Cir. 2001) - generally cited

2. Ikharo v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 3001756 (6th Cir. 2010) - cited favorably.

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 (7th Cir. 2004) - notes no longer good law under asylum statute

1. Adeyemo v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 558 (7th 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 (8th 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.

5. Duhaney v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 621 F.3d 340 (3d Cir. 2010)-cites and discusses favorably

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 (5th Cir. 2001) - upholds

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

A.3. Clifton v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 1006436 (8th Cir. 2010)-cited

A.4. Duhaney v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 621 F.3d 340 (3d Cir. 2010)-cites favorably

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

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

2. Malilia v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2011 WL 322383 (9th Cir. 2011) - cites

Toia v. Fasano, 334 F.3d 917 (9th Cir. 2003) - rejects, finding 5-year bar does not apply to aliens who pleaded guilty prior to 1990 Act, and who are otherwise eligible

2. Cabral v. Holder, 632 F.3d 886 (5th Cir. 2011) - cites favorably

Abdelqadar v. Gonzales, 413 F.3d 668 (7th Cir. 2005) - upholds

2. Cabral v. Holder, 632 F.3d 886 (5th Cir. 2011) - cites favorably

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

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

2. Enriquez-Gutierrez v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 2795327 (5th Cir. 2010) - cited (in fn).

3. Malilia v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2011 WL 322383 (9th Cir. 2011) - cites

4. Castro v. Attorney General, 2012 WL 456530 (3rd Cir 2012) - cites

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 IJ’s decision becomes final immediately upon waiver of alien’s right to appeal.

B. Board lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate case where alien waived appeal.

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

3. Pacua v. Holder, 2011 WL 102443 (9th Cir. 2011) - cites favorably; remanded for BIA to consider applicability”

Virk v. INS, 295 F.3d 1055 (9th Cir. 2002) - cites with approval

2. Corona-Mendez v. Holder, 593 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir. 2010)- distinguished.

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

A.1. Franklin v. INS, 72 F.3d 571 (8th Cir. 1995), affirmed

A.2. Idy v. Holder, 2012 WL 975567 (1st Cir. 2012) – Accords Chevron deference

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

4. Viridiana v. Holder, 630 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2011) - follows, citing Abebe v. Gonzales (see above).

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

7. Hamazaspyan v. Holder, —F.3d—; 2009 WL 4893659 (9th Cir. 2009)-cited favorably for holding that personal service practical only when respondent is physically present before IJ.

8. Sanchez v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 4923316 (6th Cir. 2010) - accords deference

9. Patel v. Holder, 2011 WL 3820847 (8th Cir. 2011) – cites favorably.

Billike-Tolosa v. Ashcroft, 385 F.3d 708(6th Cir. 2004) - cites with approval, but finds IJ/Board did not apply it

2. Padmore v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 2365863 (2d Cir. 2010)- cites w/approval, but finds BIA did not follow.

3. Garces v. U.S. Att’y Gen., —F.3d—, 2010 WL 2899024 (11th Cir. 2010) - cited favorably.

4. Sorcia v. Holder, 2011 WL 2601572 (4th Cir. 2011) - cited and discussed.”

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 (9th Cir. 2004) - cited with approval, and followed

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

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

A.1. Lal v. INS, 255 F.3d 998 (9th Cir. 2001) - cites with approval, but finds Board did not properly apply decision in this case - finds grant of asylum under Chen does not require ongoing disability

A.2. Huang v. INS, 436 F.3d 89 (2d 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 (8th Cir. 2004) - cites generally with approval

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

B.3. Crespin-Valladares v. Holder, 2011 WL 546531 (4th Cir. 2011) - cites favorably, but remands where IJ failed to apply correctly.

A. FGM can be the basis for a persecution claim

B. Young female members of the Tchamba-Kunsuntu Tribe of northern Togo who have not been subjected to female genital mutilation, as practiced by that tribe, and who oppose the practice, are members of a "particular social group."

A2. Abay v. Ashcroft, 368 F.3d 634 (6th 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

A3. Balogun v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 492 (7th Cir. 2004) - distinguishes, because alien came here several times before first making her FGM asylum claim

A4. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785 (9th 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

A5. Niang v. Gonzales, 422 F.3d 1187 (10th Cir. 2005) - cites with approval, but remands on question of credibility and govt ability to control

A6. Benyamin v. Holder, —F.3d—; 2009 WL 2581734 (9th Cir. 2009)-interprets holding as FGM is persecution; not as setting a min. level of physical invasion necessary to constitute persecution.”

A7. Perdomo v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 2721524 (9th Cir. 2010)- cited.

B1. Cece v. Holder, 2012 WL 383949 (7th Cir 2012) - cites

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 (9th 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 (7th 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 (7th Cir. 2004) - upholds, but notes rule depends on reasonableness of expecting evidence

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

A.13. Dawoud v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 608 (7th 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 (1st Cir. 2005) - cites with approval, and finds Board properly applied case

A.15. Soeung v. Holder, 2012 WL 1415643 (1st Cir. 2012) – cites favorably

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.

Delgado v. Mukasey, 508 F. 3d 702 (2d Cir. 2007): cites with approval, explains and distinguishes finding Board incorrectly applied.

2. Qu v. Holder, 618 F.3d 602 (6th Cir. 2010)-cites favorably

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.

A.5. Chehazeh v. Attorney General, 2012 WL 77881 (3rd Cir 2012) - cites with approval

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(5th Cir. 2006) - cites with approval

3. Vartelas v. Holder, 620 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2010)-grants Chevron deference

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 (7th 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

1.Mayo v. Ashcroft, 317 F.3d 867 (8^th Cir. 1/27/03, amended 6/25/03) - cited generally with approval

2. Litvinov v. Holder, 2010 WL 1994683 (8th Cir. 2010)-follows.

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

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

4. Dehonzai v. Holder, 2011 WL 1988206 (1st Cir. 2011) - cites favorably.”

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

2. Rios v. Ashcroft, 287 F.3d 895 (9th 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 (5th 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

5. Camara v. Att’y Gen’l, —F.3d—; 2009 WL 2836437 (3d Cir. 2009)-cites and distinguishes on facts

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

3. Ladyha v. Holder, —F.3d—; 2009 WL 4042122 (8th Cir. 2009)-cited favorably, distinguished on facts.

4. v. Holder, 2012 WL 28950 (10th Cir. 2012) – cited favorably

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 (9th 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 (10th 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

A. Moosa v. INS, 171 F.3d 994 (5^th Cir. 1999) - upholds Board

A. 2. Siddiqui v. Holder, 2012 WL 130447 (7th Cir. 2012) - declines to apply the new definition of "conviction" to aliens who are expressly granted relief nunc pro tunc due to DHS's wrongdoing

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.1. Lal v. INS, 255 F.3d 998 (9^th Cir. 2001) - cites with approval, but finds Board did not properly apply decision in this case - finds grant of asylum under Chen does not require ongoing disability

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

1. Mehmeti v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 2009 WL 1789233 (11th Cir. 2009), cites;

2. Mambwe v. Holder, 572 F.3d 540 (8th Cir. 2009), cites

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

A.1. Lopez v. INS, 184 F.3d 1097 (9^th Cir. 1999) - cited with approval in footnote

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 (4th Cir. 1999) - upholds

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

4. Ledezma-Galicia v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 1172469 (9th Cir. 2010)-Rejects holding

1. Ruiz-Romero v. Reno*, 205 F.3d 837 (5^th Cir. 2000) - affirmed

2. Barradas v. Holder, —F.3d—; 2009 WL 3014645 (7th Cir. 2009)-followed.

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 (11th Cir. 2004) - upholds

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

9. U.S. v. Adame-Orozco, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 2220592 (10th Cir. 2010)- cites favorably

10. Wellington v. Holder, —F.3d —, 2010 WL 4103759 (2d Cir. 2010)- accords Chevron deference

1. Sui v. INS, 250 F.3d 105 (2d Cir. 2001) - accepts legal holding, but finds no substantial step here (i.e. distinguishes on facts)

2. Ljutica v. Holder, —F.3d—; 2009 WL 4349837 (2d Cir. 2009)-cites favorably.

1. Shivaraman v. Ashcroft, 360 F.3d 1142 (9th 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

4. Zuluaga-Martinez v. INS, 523 F.3d 365 (2d Cir. 2008) - agrees, reaching same conclusion w/o affording Chevron deference.

5. Baraket v. Holder, 632 F.3d 56 (2d Cir. 2011) - agrees, relying on court’s earlier holdings w/o reaching issue of Chevron deference

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. Guerrero-Perez v. INS, 242 F.3d 727 (7th Cir. 2001) - cites generally with approval

2. Barradas v. Holder, —F.3d—; 2009 WL 3014645 (7th Cir. 2009)-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. Renteria-Morales v. Mukasey, 2008 WL   5192056 (9th Cir. 2008) (superseding 532 F.3d 949), accorded deference.

2. Denis v. Att’y Gen. Of US, —F.3d—, 2011 WL 223024 (3d Cir. 2011) - does not accord deference; interprets (S) agg fel more broadly

1. Chanmouny v. Ashcroft, 376 F.3d 810 (8th 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

3. A.2. Kellerman v. Holder, 592 F.3d 700 (6th Cir. 2010)- cited favorably.

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 (1st^t 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 (7th Cir. 2001) - cites with approval

5. Mugalli v. Ashcroft, 258 F.3d 52 (2d Cir. 2001) - accords deference”

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

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

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

9. Estrada-Espinoza v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2008) - does not accord deference

10. Restrepo v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 617 F.3d 787 (3d Cir. 2010)-accords Chevron deference.

11. Ganzhi v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 3465604 (2d Cir. 2010)- cites

12. Oouch v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2011 WL 257336 (2d Cir. 2011) - affirms Chevron deference accorded in prior decision; declines to concur w/ 9th Cir.

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

3. Bazan-Reyes v. INS, 256 F.3d 600 (7th 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 (9th 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

Ali v. Mukasey, 525 F. 3d 171 (2d Cir. 2008)-follows, extends to represented respondents

Narine v. Holder, 2009 WL 580865 (4th Cir. 2009), discusses

3. U.S. v. Ramos, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 3720208 (9th Cir. 2010)- cites

4. Kohwarien v. Holder, 2011 WL 754259 (5th Cir. 2011) - cites favorably

Faruk v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 940 (9th Cir. 2004) - cited with approval

2. Rahimzadeh v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 2890998 (9th Cir. 2010) - cited and distinguished from facts of present case.

1. Hernandez-Mancilla v. INS, 246 F.3d 1002 (7th Cir. 2001) upholds (court dealt with Ill. crime of possession of stolen vehicle)

2. Abimbola v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 173 (2d Cir. 2004)-upheld as reasonable.

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

4. Almeida v. Holder, —F.3d—; 2009 WL 4576067 (2d Cir. 2009)-reaffirms reasonableness.

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

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

3. Garces v. U.S. Att’y Gen., —F.3d—, 2010 WL 2899024 (11th Cir. 2010) - cited favorably.

2. Hernandez-Mancilla v. INS, 246 F.3d 1002 (7th 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)

1. Marin-Garcia v. Holder, 2011 WL 3130273 (7th Cir. 2011) – dismisses constitutional challenge to Board’s holding.

2. Hasan v. Holder, 2012 WL 762961 (1st Cir. 2012) - notes the IJ's reliance on

2. Nehme v. INS, 252 F.3d 415 (5th 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

Child born out of wedlock in El Salvador on/after 12/16/65 is legally equivalent to child born in wedlock once paternity established; qualifies as legitimated child under INA § 101(b)(1)(C).

1. Romero-Mendoza v. Holder, 2011 WL 63183336 (9th Cir. 2011) – discusses and follows.

2. Anderson v. Holder, 2012 WL 762980 (9th Cir. 2012) - notes the 9th Circuit's reliance on Moraga in Romero-Mendoza v. Holder, 665 F.3d 1105

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.

6. Yepremyan v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 3122871 (9th Cir. 2010) - cited and distinguished from facts of present case.

7. Malilia v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2011 WL 322383 (9th Cir. 2011) - cites favorably

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

4. Castro v. Attorney General, 2012 WL 456530 (3rd Cir 2012) - quotes the description of a motion for reconsideration

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 (5th Cir. 2003) - upheld

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

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

5. Ortiz-Cornejo v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 610 (8th 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 (9th Cir. 2006) - distinguished

8. Ascencio-Rodriguez v. Holder, 2010 WL 535791 (2d Cir. 2010)-accords deference.

9. Vasquez v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2011 WL 522843 (1st Cir. 2011) - accords deference

10. Reyes-Sanchez v. Holder, 2011 WL 2725813 (7th Cir. 2011) – discusses and follows.

11. Gomez v. Holder, 2012 WL 400357 (9th Cir 2012) - cites with approval

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

Flores-Chavez v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2004) - without mentioning case, appears to modify to cover minors up to age 18

2. Nolasco v. Holder, 2011 WL 668035 (2d Cir. 2011) - distinguishes

1. Savoury v. Atty. Gen., 449 F.3d 1307 (11th Cir. 2006) - cites with approval.

2. Kim v. Holder, 2009 WL 775560 (8th Cir. 2009), discusses

3. Estrada-Ramos v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 2605859 (7th Cir. 2010)- discusses and affirms no lawful admission where “not otherwise entitled to” LPR status.

4. Gallimore v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 619 F.3d 216 (3d Cir. 2010)-defers to Board’s reasoning

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 (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 (7th 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.

7. Estrada-Ramos v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 2605859 (7th Cir. 2010)- cited favorably.

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.

5. Ikharo v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 3001756 (6th Cir. 2010) - upheld Board’s ability to apply outside of 2d Cir.

6. Rangel-Zuazo v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2011 WL 285214 (9th Cir. 2011) - upheld BIA’s retroactive application, as holding did not constitute a change in law.

7. Paulo v. Holder, 2011 WL 1663572 (9th Cir. 2011) - discussed without ultimately ruling on validity.

8. Rangel-Zuazo v. Holder, 2012 WL 432283 (9th Cir 2012) - recognizes that Blake was overruled by Judulang v. Holder, 132 S. Ct. 476 (2011)

9. Lopez-Loera v. Holder, 2012 WL 400653 (9th Cir 2012) - remanding to BIA based on the Supreme Court's overruling of Blake in Judulang v. Holder, 132 S. Ct. 476 (2011)

1. Abdelqadar v. Gonzales, 413 F.3d 668 (7th 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.

3. Totimeh v. Attorney General, 2012 WL 89580 (3rd Cir. 2012) - declining to follow, noting it was modified by 25 I&N Dec. 397 (BIA 2011)

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

7. Van Don Nguyen v. Holder, 571 F.3d 524 (6th Cir. 2009), rejects re aggravated felony finding

8. Mancillas-Ruiz v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 3156544 (7th Cir. 2010)- follows

9. Paulo v. Holder, 2011 WL 1663572 (9th Cir. 2011) -discussed without ultimately ruling on validity.

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 (8th Cir. 2005) - without citing,

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

3. Tapia v. Gonzales,430 F.3d 993 (9th 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 (9th Cir. 2006) - distinguished

5. Valadez-Munoz v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 4241586 (9th Cir. 2010)- cites favorably

6. Vasquez v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2011 WL 522843 (1st Cir. 2011) - accords deference

7. Reyes-Sanchez v. Holder, 2011 WL 2725813 (7th Cir. 2011) – cites favorably.

8. Gomez v. Holder, 2012 WL 400357 (9th Cir 2012) - applies the principle of Avilez-Nava but reaches a different result based on different facts

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

3. Gonzalez-Balderas v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 743947 (7th Cir. 2010)-cites with approval

4. Gonzales v. DHS, 508 F.3d 1227 (9th Cir. 2007)-accords deference

Alim v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 1239 (11th Cir. 2006) - cites with approval

2. Garces v. U.S. Att’y Gen., —F.3d—, 2010 WL 2899024 (11th Cir. 2010) - cited favorably.

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

4. Lin v. Holder, 620 F.3d 807 (7th Cir. 2010)- cites with approval

A. Non-criminal informants working against the Cali drug cartel in Colombia are not members of a particular social group

B. Social visibility is an important consideration in identifying a "particular social group"

A1. Castillo-Arias v. U.S. Attorney General,* 446 F.3d 1190 (11th Cir. 2006) - affirmed

A2. Pavlyk v. Gonzales, 469 F.3d 1082
(7th Cir., December 4, 2006) - cites with approval.

A3. Ucelo-Gomez v. Mukasey, 509 F. 3d 70 (2d Cir. 2007): follows

A4. Malonga v. Mukasey, 2008 WL 4763453 (8th Cir. 2008), cites with approval

A5. Perdomo v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 2721524 (9th Cir. 2010)- cited.

A6. Ayala v. Holder, 2011 WL 1886391 (9th Cir. 2011) - accords deference.

A7. v. Att’y Gen., 2011 WL 5903780 (3d Cir. 2011) – distinguishes in footnote.

A8. Gaitan v. Holder, 2012 WL 653042 (8th Cir. 2012) - cites

B1. Rivera-Barrientos v. Holder, 2012 WL 75974 (10th Cir 2012) - follows

Sole means of legitimizing child born out of wedlock in Guyana is marriage of parents; where parents never married, respondent not ineligible for derivative citizenship under INA former § 321(a)(3).

1. Romero-Mendoza v. Holder, 2011 WL 63183336 (9th Cir. 2011) – discusses, distinguishes

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.

A. BIA lacks authority to extend the 30-day time limit for filing appeals.

B. A short delay by an overnight delivery service does not warrant consideration of an untimely appeal by certification under 8 C.F.R. § 1001.3(c).

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

Alien who fails to post VD bond under INA § 240B(b)(3) is not subject to penalties for failure to timely depart.

1. Bachynskyy v. Holder, 2011 WL 6287868 (7th Cir. 2011) – cited and discussed.

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

4. Faye v. Holder, —F.3d—; 2009 WL 2767302 (1st Cir. 2009)-followed

5. Perdomo v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 2721524 (9th Cir. 2010)- cited.

6. Lizama v. Holder, 629 F.3d 440 (4th Cir. 2011) - accords deference

7. Gaitan v. Holder, 2012 WL 653042 (8th Cir. 2012) - cites

8. Rivera-Barrientos v. Holder, 2012 WL 75974 (10th Cir 2012) - cites

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.

1. Lubale v. Gonzales, 484 F. 3d 1078 (8th Cir. 2007)- cites favorably

2. Singh v. Holder, 2011 WL 2899607 (9th Cir. 2011) – discusses favorably.

3. Romer v. Holder, 2011 WL 6144908 (1st Cir. 2011) – cites favorably.

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.

1. Hernandez de Anderson v. Gonzales, 497 F. 3d 927 (9th Cir. 2007)-upholds as “not plainly erroneous”

2. Periello v. Napolitano, 579 F.3d 135 (2d Cie. 2009) – upholds.

3. Zegrean v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 1443197 (3d Cir. 2010)- accords deference

4. Ogunfuye v. Holder, 610 F.3d 303 (5th Cir. 2010) - upholds

5. Barnes v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 4486599 (4th Cir. 2010) - accords deference

6. Shewchun v. Holder, 2011 WL 3926378 (6th Cir. 2011) – upholds. 

7. Solis-Chavez v. Holder, 2011 WL 5041916 (7th Cir. 2011) – discusses; remands for BIA to address.

8. Gonzalez v. Sec. Dep’t of Homeland Sec.,  2012 WL 898609 (3d Cir. 2012) – cites with approval

Placencia-Ayala v. Mukasey, 516 F. 3d 738 (9th Cir. 2008): rejects reasoning, holding that the mere failure to register as a sex offender cannot constitute morally turpitudinous behavior.

2. Mata-Guerrero v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 4746189 (7th Cir. 2010) - not accorded deference; applied now obsolete categorical approach

3. Totimeh v. Attorney General, 2012 WL 89580 (3rd Cir. 2012)--rejects reasoning and refuses to follow

Kalilu v. Mukasey, 516 F. 3d 777 (9th Cir. 2008): cites favorably; remands for consideration under criteria of Y-L-.

2. Ahir v. Mukasey, 527 F.3d 912 (9th Cir. 2008)-adopts analytical framework set out by BIA.

3. Khadka v. Holder, 618 F.3d 996 (9th Cir. 2010)-cites favorably, remanded due to IJ’s failure to comply with.

4. Liu v. Holder, 2011 WL 635276 (9th Cir. 2011) - cites favorably, remands due to IJ’s failure to comply with

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

B.5. Mirisawo v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 963200 (4th Cir. 2010)-cites favorably

B.6. Vincent v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2011 WL 499278 (6th Cir. 2011) - cites

B.7. v. Holder, 2012 WL 28950 (10th Cir. 2012) – cited 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

4. Lin v. Holder, 620 F.3d 807 (7th Cir. 2010)- cites with approval

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

3. Shaikh v. Holder, —F.3d—; 2009 WL 3855715 (5th Cir. 2009)-cites favorably

4. Castro v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 698294 (2d Cir. 2010)-cites favorably

5. Dallakoti v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 3860994 (10th Cir. 2010)- accepts BIA’s interpretation

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

2. Escobar v. Holder, 567 F.3d 466 (9th Cir. 2009), reverses; vacated 2009 WL 2054992 (9th Cir. 2009).

1. Garcia v. Holder, —F.3d—; 2009 WL 3430124 (10th Cir. 2009)-cited favorably

2. Garcia-Carbajal v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 4367060 (10th Cir. 2010) - cites favorably

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

1. Lin v. Mukasey, 521 F. 3d 22 (1st Cir. 2008): cites favorably, follows rationale

2. Rasiah v. Holder, —F.3d—; 2009 WL 4667103 (1st Cir. 2009)-cited favorably.

3. Singh v. Holder, 2011 WL 2418894 (9th Cir. 2011) - cites favorably.

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

6. Kone v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 653258 (2d Cir. 2010)-cited for leaving open whether harm inflicted on child w/intent of emotionally harming parent may provide basis for parent’s individual claim.

7. Seck v. Att’y Gen., 2011 WL 6091204 (11th Cir. 2011) – cites, discusses, but does not rule on (distinguishes facts).

A-T-, 24 I&N 296 (2007),vacated, A-T-, 24 I&N Dec. 617 (A.G. 2008), remanded to Immigration Judge, 25 I&N Dec. 4 (BIA 2009).

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.

A. Board Holding:  non-element facts of a removal charge may be determined by evidence beyond the record of conviction; addressing section 101(a)(43)(M) of the Act.

B. When a removal charge depends on proof of both the elements leading to a conviction and some nonelement facts, the nonelement facts may be determined by means of evidence beyond the limited “record of conviction”

A1. See Nijhawan v. Holder, 129 S. Ct. 2294 (2009) (finding the $10,000 loss provision in section 101(a)(43)(M) of the Act calls for a Acircumstance-specific@ interpretation, not a Acategorical@ one).

B1. Prudencio v. Holder, 2012 WL 256061 (4th Cir 2012) - noting the AG's reliance on 24 I&N Dec. 687 in his decision of 24 I&N Dec. 687

1. Delgado v. Mukasey, 2009 WL 1025874 (9th Cir. 2009)

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

3. Alaka v. Attorney General, 456 F.3d 88 (3d Cir. 2006), contra, issued prior to N-A-M.

4..Tian v. Holder, —F.3d—; 2009 WL 2514153 (8th Cir. 2009)-cites favorably

5. N-A-M- v. Holder, —F.3d—; 2009 WL 3949130 (10th Cir. 2009)-affirmed.

6. Denis v. Att’y Gen. Of US, —F.3d—, 2011 WL 223024 (3d Cir. 2011) - upholds as reasonable interpretation

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., 2009 WL 92842 (6th Cir. 2009), cites approvingly

6. Chen v. U.S. Attorney General, 2009 WL 981212 (11th Cir. 2009), accords deference;

7. Zheng v. Holder, 2009 WL 1015029 (4th Cir. 2009), accords daeference.

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.

3. Herrera-Castillo v. Holder, 2009 WL 2217519 (10th Cir. 2009), indicating deference should be accorded.

4. Ramirez v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 2499988 (4th Cir. 2010)- accords deference

5. Villanueva v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 3034888 (8th Cir. 2010) - adopts reasoning.

6. Padilla-Caldera v. Holder, 2011 WL 856272 (10th Cir. 2011) - accords deference

7. Cheruku v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 2011 WL 4392429 (3d Cir. 2011) – accords deference.

Herrera-Castillo v. Holder, 2009 WL 2217519 (10th Cir. 2009), accorded Chevron deference.

2. Lemus-Losa v. Holder*, —F.3d—; 2009 WL 2461353 (7th Cir. 2009)-did not accord deference due to Board’s inadequate consideration of the statute at issue; remanded

3. Almeida v. Holder, —F.3d—; 2009 WL 4576067 (2d Cir. 2009)-cites favorably.

4. Villanueva v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 3034888 (8th Cir. 2010) - adopts reasoning.

5. Cheruku v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 2011 WL 4392429 (3d Cir. 2011) – accords 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.

A. 1. Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, 570 F.3d 263 (5th Cir. 2009) (upholding Board’s determination that Fifth Circuit law controlled case).

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

B.4. Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, —U.S.—, 130 S.Ct. 2577, 2346552 (2010)-reverses 5th Cir. holding.

B.5. Enriquez-Gutierrez v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 2795327 (5th Cir. 2010)-cites while acknowledging (in fn) S. Ct.’s reversal of A.1.

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

1. Walker v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2009 WL 4725237 (1st Cir. 2009)-cites favorably for its holding that birth abroad creates presumption of alienage.

A. BIA should defer to IJ’s factual findings (unless clearly erroneous); retains independent judgment and discretion re pure questions of law and application of a particular standard of law to those facts.

B. In determining if established facts meet legal standard, the BIA can weigh evidence differently from IJ or conclude the foundation for the IJ’s legal conclusions was insufficient or not supported by record.

B.1. Yusupov v. Att’y Gen. of U.S., 2011 WL 2410741 (3d Cir. 2011) - cited.

B.2. Huang v. Holder, 2012 WL 1003506 (2d Cir. 2012) – disagrees

A. “Crime of child abuse” defined as any offense involving intentional, knowing, reckless or criminally negligent act or omission constituting maltreatment of a minor or that impairs such person’s well-being, including sexual abuse or exploitation.

B. Alien’s removability for such crime is determined by the elements of his/her offense, as reflected in the statutory definition or admissible portions of the conviction record.

A. The spouse of one subjected to forcible abortion/sterilization is not a refugee per se.

B. Spouse may still qualify as refugee based on own fear of future subjection to abortion/sterilization, or on fear of persecution on account of “other resistance” to coercive population control program.

A.1. Dong v. Holder, —F.3d—; 2009 WL 3682652 (1st Cir. 2009)-cited

A.2. Jiang v. Holder, 2010 WL 2026671 (9th Cir. 2010)-accords deference.

A.3. Jiang v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 2757377 (9th Cir. 2010)-accords deference.

A.4. Pang v. Holder, 2012 WL 28950 (10th Cir. 2012) – cited favorably

2. Romero-Mendoza v. Holder, 2011 WL 63183336 (9th Cir. 2011) – cites and discusses.

1. Rotimi v. Holder*, —F.3d—; 2009 WL 2476648 (2d Cir. 2009)-accords deference

2. Vila v. U.S. Att’y Gen., —F.3d—, 2010 WL 786605 (11th Cir. 2010)-accords deference

1. Santos-Lemos v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738 (9th Cir. 2008), cites approvingly

2. Ramos-Lopez v. Holder, 2009 WL 1012062 (9th Cir. 2009), accords deference.

3. Marroquin-Ochoma v. Holder, 2009 WL 2225808 (8th Cir. 2009), cites in reasoning.

4. Al-Ghorbani v. Holder, —F.3d—; 2009 WL 3718297 (6th Cir. 2009)-cited

5. Mejilla-Romero v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 1293818 (1st Cir. 2010)-cites favorably.

6. Larios v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 2473327 (4th Cir. 2010)- cites with approval.

7. Lizama v. Holder, 629 F.3d 440, (4th Cir. 2011) - cites with approval;

8. Crespin-Valladares v. Holder, 2011 WL 546531 (4th Cir. 2011) - cites favorably, but remands where IJ failed to apply correctly

9. Constanza v. Holder, 2011 WL 3241864 (8th Cir. 2011) – follows.

10. Gaitan v. Holder, 2012 WL 653042 (8th Cir. 2012) - follows

11. Rivera-Barrientos v. Holder, 2012 WL 75974 (10th Cir 2012) - follows

12. Mayorga-Vidal v. Holder, 2012 WL 883193 (1st Cir. 2012) – defers to.

1. Marroquin-Ochoma v. Holder, 2009 WL 2225808 (8th Cir. 2009), cites.

2. Ramos v. Holder, —F.3d—; 2009 WL 4800123 (7th Cir. 2009)-cited, but distinguished from case of former gang members.

3. Mejilla-Romero v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 1293818 (1st Cir. 2010)-follows

4. Larios v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 2473327 (4th Cir. 2010)- cites with approval.

5. Lizama v. Holder, 629 F.3d 440, (4th Cir. 2011) - accords deference

6. Ayala v. Holder, 2011 WL 1886391 (9th Cir. 2011) - cites favorably.

7. Rivera-Barrientos v. Holder, 2012 WL 75974 (10th Cir 2012) - cites

8. Mayorga-Vidal v. Holder, 2012 WL 883193 (1st Cir. 2012) – cites favorably

1. Muratoski v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 3619792 (7th Cir. 2010) - cites favorably

2. Castro v. Attorney General, 2012 WL 456530 (3rd Cir 2012) - cites

A. Act that thwarts the goal of China’s family planning policy may constitute “other resistance.”

B. Insertion of IUD will generally not constitute persecution.

C. Generally, no nexus to protected ground where IUD inserted as part of routine medical procedure.

Rosillo-Puga v. Holder, —F.3d—; 2009 WL 2929828 (10th Cir. 2009-follows

2. Marin-Rodriguez v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 2757321 (7th Cir. 2010) - rejects reasoning.

3. Zhang v. Holder, 617 F.3d 650 (2d Cir. 2010)-accords Chevron deference.

4. Pruidze v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2011 WL 320726 (6th Cir. 2011) - cites;

5. Luna v. Holder, 2011 WL 722607 (2d Cir. 2011) - disagrees w/ dicta suggesting that regulation deprives BIA of jurisdiction to consider statutory motions to reopen after movant departs U.S.

6. Contreras-Bocanegra v. Holder, 2012 WL 255879 (10th Cir 1012) - cites, noting that the BIA has described the post-departure bar as a jurisdictional regulation

1. Ba v. Holder, 2009 WL 92842 (6th Cir. 2009), cites approvingly

2. Dakaj v. Holder, —F.3d—; 2009 WL 2707534 (7th Cir. 2009)-cites favorably

3. Bachynskyy v. Holder, 2011 WL 6287868 (7th Cir. 2011) – cites favorably.

A. Creates a 3-step process for CIMT determinations; adds a “realistic probability” requirement to the categorical approach.

B. Categorical finding of CIMT proper where conviction was for intentional sexual contact w/one the defendant knew or should have known was a child.

C. CIMT must involve both reprehensible conduct and some degree of scienter.

A.1. Jean-Louis v. Att’y Gen., —F.3d—; 2009 WL 3172753 (3d Cir. 2009)-does not accord deference to AG’s “realistic prbability” requirement.

A.2. Mata-Guerrero v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 4746189 (7th Cir. 2010) - accords deference

A.3. Fajardo v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 2011 WL 4808171 (11th Cir. 2011) – does not accord deference

1. Wu v. Holder, 571 F.3d 467 (5th Cir. 2009), cites.

2. Thirman v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 1076061 (8th Cir. 2010)-cited; court found holding did not extend to pendency of appeal of I-130 denial w/ BIA.

3. Young Hee Kwak v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 2499425 (6th Cir. 2010)- cited

4. Malilia v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2011 WL 322383 (9th Cir. 2011) - applies holding

5. Freire v. Holder, 2011 WL 2090820 (2d Cir. 2011) - cited favorably; remands for BIA to apply holding to instant case.

6. Simon v. Holder, 2011 WL 3606854 (3d Cir. 2011) – cites favorably; remands for BIA to apply in instant case. 

7. Shewchun v. Holder, 2011 WL 3926378 (6th Cir. 2011) – cites favorably.

1. Marin-Rodriguez v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 2757321 (7th Cir. 2010) - discussed.

2. Pruidze v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2011 WL 320726 (6th Cir. 2011) - cites

A. With one narrow exception, jurisdiction over adjustment applications filed by arriving aliens lies w/ USCIS.

B. The Board generally lacks authority to reopen proceedings where the alien seeks relief over which the BIA has no jurisdiction, especially where reopening is sought to simply to stay deportation.

C. Board will generally not reopen sua sponte in regard to untimely or number-barred motions by arriving aliens seeking to adjust.

Set out factors for IJs to consider in determining whether to grant continuance based on pending employment-based visa petition or labor certification.

1. Contreras v. Att’y Gen., 2012 WL 10930 (3d Cir. 2012) – cited (in footnote).

VD regs at 8 C.F.R. § 1240.26(c)(4) (effective 1/20/2009) do not apply retroactively.

1. Bachynskyy v. Holder, 2011 WL 6287868 (7th Cir. 2011) – cited.

Grant of VD under 8 C.F.R. § 1240.26(c)(3) (2010) requires IJ advisals that proof of posting bond must be submitted to BIA w/i 30 days, or BIA will not reinstate VD in its final order.

1. Bachynskyy v. Holder, 2011 WL 6287868 (7th Cir. 2011) – cited

1. Chen v. Att’y Gen. Of US, 2011 WL 923353 (3d Cir. 2011) - Follows

2. Abdurakhmanov v. Holder, 2012 WL 171360 (6th Cir 2012) - distinguishes

3. Huang v. Holder, 2012 WL 1003506 (2d Cir. 2012) – Overrules; held “clearly erroneous” standard applicable to IJ finding re fear of future persecution.

1. Zhang v. Holder, 617 F.3d 650 (2d Cir. 2010)-cites favorably.

2. Liu v. Holder, 2011 WL 635276 (9th Cir. 2011) - follows

A. Conditional parole under INA § 236(a)(2)(B) and parole under INA § 212(d)(5)(A) are distinct and separate procedures.

B. Release from custody under conditional parole does not render an alien eligible to adjust status as one paroled into the U.S.