Kucana v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 534 (7th Cir. Jul. 7, 2008) (court of appeal lacked jurisdiction to review motions to reopen, except for "questions of law" or constitutional questions), distinguishing Singh v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 1024, 1026-27 (7th Cir. 2005) (to apply INA 8 U.S.C. 242(a)(2)(B)(ii), 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) to bar jurisdiction over orders denying motions to reopen would make the consolidation rule nonsensical), following Ali v. Gonzales, 502 F.3d 659 (7th Cir. 2007).

Matter of Rotimi, 24 I. & N. Dec. 567 (BIA 2008) (the period a lawful permanent resident spent in the United States as an applicant for asylum or while adjustment of status was pending does not count toward 7-years lawful residence requirement under INA 212(h), where the noncitizen lacked any other basis on which to claim lawful residence). http://www.usdoj.gov/eoir/vll/intdec/vol24/3616.pdf

Williams v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 1040 (9th Cir. Jul. 9, 2008) (publication in federal register of deadline upon which noncitizen previously ordered removed could move to reopen in order to apply for CAT, a new form of relief, was sufficient notice of deadline; noncitizen did not have right to actual notice of the deadline).

Williams v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 1040 (9th Cir. Jul. 9, 2008) (publication in federal register of deadline upon which noncitizen previously ordered removed could move to reopen in order to apply for CAT, a new form of relief, was sufficient notice of deadline; noncitizen did not have right to actual notice of the deadline).

Grant v. US DHS, ___ F.3d ___, 2008 WL 2757042 (2d Cir. Jul. 17, 2008) (per curiam) (rejecting equal protection challenge to the constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. 1432 (a) (1994), which provided that an alien born out of wedlock could obtain derivative citizenship based on the naturalization of his or her mother before the alien turned eighteen but could not obtain derivative citizenship based on the naturalization of his or her father before the alien turned eighteen unless paternity had been established by legitimation).

Masih v. Mukasey, ___ F.3d ___, 2008 WL 2747462 (5th Cir. Jul. 16, 2008) (IJ and BIA abused discretion by denying motion for continuance where noncitizen eligible for adjustment of status was unable to adjust only because visas had become unavailable after application; BIA and IJ failed to consider OI 245.4(a)(6) in their rulings despite the regulation's applicability; and the BIA ignored precedent set in Matter of Ho).

News article on private bills contains good explanation of the process, strategy, and chances of success. Single-family immigration bills face great difficulty in Congress, McClatchy Newspapers, Tucson, Arizona (June 15, 2008), http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/border/243832

Bustamante v. Musakey, 531 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. Jul. 9, 2008) ("We hold today, as we did twenty-two years ago in Li Hing of Hong Kong, Inc. v. Levin, 800 F.2d 970, 971 (9th Cir.1986), that ordinarily, a consular official's decision to deny a visa to a foreigner is not subject to judicial review. However, when a U.S.

Nethagani v. Mukasey, 532 F.3d 150 (2d Cir. Jul. 9, 2008) ("when a statute authorizes the Attorney General to make a determination, but lacks additional language specifically rendering that determination to be within his discretion . . . the decision is not one that is specified . . . to be in the discretion of the Attorney General for purposes of [8 U.S.C. ] 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii).")