Prieto-Romero v. Clark, ___ F.3d ___, 2008 WL 2853396 (9th Cir. Jul. 25, 2008) (noncitizen whose removal order is administratively final, but removal is stayed pending court of appeals' resolution of petition for review, is subject to detention under 8 U.S.C.

Paredes v. Attorney General of U.S., 528 F.3d 196 (3d Cir. Jun. 9, 2008) (noncitizen must exhaust claim before BIA before raising it on petition for review), citing 8 U.S.C. 1252(d)(1) (exhaustion of administrative remedies mandatory and jurisdictional); see also Bonhometre v. Gonzales, 414 F.3d 442, 447 (3d Cir.2005) ("To exhaust a claim before the agency, an applicant must first raise the issue before the BIA or IJ, so as to give it the opportunity to resolve a controversy or correct its own errors before judicial intervention." (internal quotations and citation omitted)).

Perez Pimentel v. Mukasey, 530 F.3d 321 (5th Cir. Jun. 4, 2008) (Attorney General's promulgation of 8 C.F.R. 212.7(d) [the Attorney General generally "will not favorably exercise discretion ... with respect to immigrant aliens who are inadmissible ... in cases involving violent or dangerous crimes, except in extraordinary circumstances, such as those ... cases in which an alien clearly demonstrates that the denial of [relief] would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship."] not an ultra vires amendment of 8 U.S.C. 1182(h)(1)(B)), citing Mejia v.

Perez Pimentel v. Mukasey, 530 F.3d 321 (5th Cir. Jun.4, 2008) (8 C.F.R. 212.7(d) - creating enhanced hardship standard for violent or dangerous crimes - is not impermissibly retroactive because it does not completely foreclose relief and "neither attaches a new disability to past conduct nor upsets settled expectations."), citing Mejia v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 991, 998 (9th Cir. 2007) (rejecting retroactivity challenge to 8 C.F.R. 212.7(d)).

United States v. Cepeda-Rios, 530 F.3d 333, 335 and n.9 (5th Cir. Jun.4, 2008) (an alternative holding is binding precedent), citing Pruitt v. Levi Strauss & Co., 932 F.2d 458, 465 (5th Cir. 1991) ("This circuit follows the rule that alternative holdings are binding precedent and not obiter dictum."), abrogated on other grounds by Floors Unlimited, Inc., v. Fieldcrest Cannon, Inc., 55 F.3d 181, 185-86 (5th Cir. 1995); McLellan v. Miss. Power & Light Co., 545 F.2d 919, 925 n.21 (5th Cir.

New Practice Advisory, "Orozco v. Mukasey: Current Status of the Case and Preliminary Strategies" (May 19, 2008). This Practice Advisory discusses the holding in Orozco v. Mukasey, 521 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2008), its current status, and preliminary strategies and arguments - both within and outside of the Ninth Circuit - to avoid its negative impact. In Orozco, the Ninth Circuit held that a non-citizen who obtains entry into the U.S.

Federal immigration prosecutions continued their recent and highly unusual surge in March 2008, apparently reaching an all-time high, according to timely data obtained from the Justice Department by TRAC. The total of 9,350 such prosecutions was up by almost 50% from the previous month and 73% from the previous year. http://trac.syr.edu/tracdhs/

Dada v. Mukasey, ___ U.S. ___, 128 S.Ct. 2307 (2008) (filing a motion to reopen does not toll a period of voluntary departure, however, noncitizen should be provided with opportunity, prior to expiration).



Note: The 3d, 8th, 9th, and 11th Circuits had previously found that the filing of a motion to reopen automatically tolls the voluntary departure period, while the 1st, 4th and 5th Circuits had rejected the tolling arguments. The BIA also refused to toll the voluntary departure period. Matter of Shaar, 20 21 I&N Dec. 541 (BIA 1996).

Paredes v. Attorney General of U.S., 528 F.3d 196 (3d Cir. Jun. 9, 2008) ("pendency of post-conviction motions or other forms of collateral attack . . . does not vitiate finality [of a conviction for removal purposes], unless and until the convictions are overturned as a result of the collateral motions."), citing United States v. Garcia-Echaverria, 374 F.3d 440, 445-46 (6th Cir. 2004); Grageda v. INS, 12 F .3d 919, 921 (9th Cir. 1993); Okabe v. INS, 671 F.2d 863, 865 (5th Cir. 1982); Will v. INS, 447 F.2d 529, 533 (7th Cir. 1971).

AILF Article on Brand X in Immigration Cases: Http://www.ailf.org/lac/clearinghouse_brandx.shtml