Matter of Guadarrama, 24 I&N Dec. 625 (BIA 2008) (a noncitizen who made a false claim of citizenship by checking the "citizen or national" box on an I-9 is not necessarily a person lacking in good moral character).

&nbsp Counsel can argue that multiple CMT convictions arising out of a single criminal act may still fall within the petty offense exception to inadmissibility:



&nbsp Unlike the multiple CMT ground of deportation, INA 237(a)(2)(A)(ii), there is no explicit exception for when a noncitizens CMTs arise "out of a single scheme of criminal misconduct." Counsel can argue, however, that a second CMT committed as part of the same criminal act does not disqualify a person from the Petty Offense Exception. Matter of Medina-Lopez, 10 I. & N. Dec. 7 (BIA 1962)

Counsel can argue that Matter of Eslamizar applies to civil violations for possession of marijuana as well as to crimes of moral turpitude. A civil violation arguably should not constitute a ground of inadmissibility because it would not be a crime in the jurisdiction where the conduct occurred. 22 CFR 40.21; Matter of K,7 I. & N. Dec. 594 (BIA 1957); Pazcoguin v. Radcliffe, 922 F.3d 1209 (9th Cir. 2002). The regulation only imposes this requirement for CMTs, but judicial decisions appear to extend it to other inadmissibility grounds as well.

Mota v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 1165 (9th Cir.Sept. 17, 2008) (domestic violence conviction does not bar non-LPR cancellation of removal under INA 240A(b)(1)(B), since the conviction occurred prior to Sept. 30, 1996, the effective date of the domestic violence ground of removal).

Pina v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 5 (1st Cir. Sept. 12, 2008) ("legal custody" for purposes of the Child Citizenship Act is to be determined by reference to the relevant state law).

Esquivel v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 919 (7th Cir. Sept. 11, 2008) (former INA 212(c) relief unavailable to noncitizen who was convicted, by jury, of murder in 1981), following United States v. De Horta Garcia, 519 F.3d 658, 661 (7th Cir.2008) ("relief under 212(c) is not available to any alien whose removal proceeding began after repeal except to those who affirmatively abandoned rights or admitted guilt in reliance on 212(c) relief."); Montenegro v. Ashcroft, 355 F.3d 1035, 1037 (7th Cir. 2004).

Hassan v. Chertoff, 543 F.3d 564 (9th Cir. Sept. 11, 2008) (noncitizen traveled outside United States on advance parole while adjustment application was pending; DHS denied application while noncitizen was outside the U.S.; noncitizen placed in expedited removal upon attempted return to U.S.; court lacks jurisdiction to review DHS denial of adjustment application and revocation of advance parole).

Hassan v. Chertoff, 543 F.3d 564 (9th Cir. Sept. 11, 2008) (noncitizen traveled outside United States on advance parole while adjustment application was pending; DHS denied application while noncitizen was outside the U.S.; noncitizen placed in expedited removal upon attempted return to U.S.; court lacks jurisdiction to review DHS denial of adjustment application and revocation of advance parole).

Figueroa v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 487 (9th Cir. Sept. 10, 2008) (IJ applied wrong standard in requiring that deportation would result in unconscionable harm to noncitizens children; IJ also erred by looking only at present harm to children, and failed to considered future harm). See also, Matter of Monreal-Aguinaga, 23 I. & N. Dec. 56, 61 (BIA 2001) (en banc) ("[W]e do not find that an unconscionable standard is an appropriate one to apply in evaluating a respondent's eligibility for cancellation of removal under section 240A(b) of the Act."); Matter of Recinas, 23 I. & N. Dec.

Sharashidze v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 1177 (7th Cir. Sept. 8, 2008) (pending circuit court appeal does not toll 90-day time limit for filing motion to reopen with Board of Immigration Appeals).