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).

Gertsenshteyn v. Mukasey, 544 F.3d 137 (2d Cir. Sept. 25, 2008) ("When the BIA has adopted the IJ's reasoning and offered additional commentary, we review the decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA. Wala, 511 F.3d at 105. Additionally, when our jurisdiction depends on the definition of a phrase used in the INA, and "when the intent of Congress is unclear and the agency's interpretation is reasonable," we accord the BIA's determination the deference mandated by the Supreme Court's decision in Chevron. Mugalli, 258 F.3d at 55 (internal quotation marks omitted).

Gertsenshteyn v. Mukasey, 544 F.3d 137 (2d Cir. Sept. 25, 2008) ("We have adopted a "categorical approach" to deciding whether a crime of conviction fits within the definition of "aggravated felony" in 1101(a)(43), thereby rendering an alien removable under 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). Santos v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 323, 325 (2d Cir.2006) (per curiam). Under this approach, which is sometimes called the Taylor-Shepard approach, after Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990), and Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S.

Mukasey v. Diouf, 542 F.3d 1222 (9th Cir. Sept. 18, 2008) (90-day clock for Immigration Authorities to remove noncitizen starts only after the final date the DHS can show documented evidence of obstruction by the noncitizen of the removal process).

Mukasey v. Diouf, 542 F.3d 1222 (9th Cir. Sept. 18, 2008) (the filing habeas corpus petitions challenging detention cannot be considered an attempt by a noncitizen to obstruct removal for the purposes of the 90-day clock).

Mukasey v. Diouf, 542 F.3d 1222 (9th Cir. Sept. 18, 2008) (rejecting argument that because it was not possible to tell how long it would take for the courts to resolve various habeas petitions filed by noncitizen, the noncitizen was in "indefinite detention" mandating release).

United States v. Reyes-Solano, 543 F.3d 474 (8th Cir. Sept.

Gertsenshteyn v. Mukasey, 544 F.3d 137 (2d Cir. Sept. 25, 2008) (federal conviction of violating and conspiring to violate 18 U.S.C. 2422(a), enticing individuals to travel in interstate or foreign commerce to engage in prostitution, did not constitute an aggravated felony under INA 101(a)(43)(K)(ii), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(K)(ii) ("an offense that ... is described in section 2421, 2422 or 2423 of Title 18 ...

Gertsenshteyn v. Mukasey, 544 F.3d 137 (2d Cir. Sept. 25, 2008) ("[T]he INA premises removability not on what an alien has done, or may have done, or is likely to do in the future (tempting as it may be to consider those factors), but on what he or she has been formally convicted of in a court of law.