United States v. Becerril-Lopez, 528 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. Jun. 12, 2008) (to show conviction does not fall within ground of removal, noncitizen must show reasonable probability that the state would apply its statute to conduct outside the generic definition, which in the Ninth Circuit can be done by showing that the text of the state statute expressly includes a broader range of conduct than the Guideline: "In Duenas-Alvarez, the defendant's argument relied not on the express text of the statute at issue, but on how state courts might conceivably apply it.

Paredes v. Attorney General of U.S., 528 F.3d 196 (3d Cir. Jun.9, 2008)("[A] conviction does not attain a sufficient degree of finality for immigration purposes until direct appellate review of the conviction has been exhausted or waived." Matter of Ozkok, 19 I. & N. Dec. 546, 552 n. 7 (BIA 1988) (citing Marino v. INS, 537 F.2d 686 (2d Cir. 1976); Aguilera-Enriquez v. INS, 516 F.2d 565 (6th Cir.1975); Will v. INS, 447 F.2d 529 (7th Cir. 1971)), superceded by statute on other grounds.

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).

New AILF practice advisory: Trina Realmuto, "Finality" of Removal Orders for Judicial Review Purposes (June 23, 2008). Addressing whether a BIA remand, for example, affects the "finality" of a removal order.
http://www.ailf.org/lac/pa/lac_pa_finrem.pdf

Kirong v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 800 (8th Cir. Jun. 20, 2008) (although courts lacks jurisdiction to review discretionary denial of relief, court retained jurisdiction to review statutory ground of denial where the statutory basis for denial could result in the noncitizen being permanently inadmissible to the United States).

Kirong v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 800 (8th Cir. Jun. 20, 2008) (noncitizen seeking to adjust status as a defense to removal must establish clearly and beyond doubt that he is not inadmissible to the United States).

Ali v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 478 (2d Cir. Jun.18, 2008) (IJ's seeming bias against the petitioner and reliance on unfounded assumptions about homosexuals deprived the petitioner of his right to a fair hearing).

Ali v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 478 (2d Cir. June 18, 2008) (counsels acknowledgement on the record that IJs decision was "final" signified that counsel had waived appeal to the BIA).

Gonzalez-Mesias v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 62 (1st Cir. Jun.18, 2008) (212(c) relief unavailable to waive aggravated felony sexual abuse of a minor or crime of violence; court indicated that BIA would not follow Blake v. Carbone outside the second circuit), following Dalombo Fontes v. Gonzales, 483 F.3d 115 (1st Cir. 2007) ; Kim v. Gonzales, 468 F.3d 58 (1st Cir. 2006), disagreeing with Blake v. Carbone, 489 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2007).

United States v. Becerril-Lopez, 541 F.3d 881 (9th Cir. Aug. 29, 2008) (immigration judge was not required to give advice of availability of pre-hearing voluntary departure, under pre-IIRAIRA law, because the relief would have been granted prior to the respondents appearance before the IJ).
Note: The court gave no opinion on the possible outcome of this issue had post-IIRAIRA rules applied, which allow the IJ to grant "pre-hearing" voluntary departure at the master calendar hearing. INA 240B(a)(1).