Matter of Jackson, 26 I. & N. Dec. 314 (BIA May 20, 2014) (Adam Walsh Act applies to all convictions suffered by any United States citizen at any time, even those occurring before the AWAs enactment).

Donnee v. Holder, ___ F.3d ___, 2014 WL 1856738 (1st Cir. May 9, 2014) (a grant of Temporary Protected Status by the Department of Homeland Security only served to prevent execution of the removal order; it did not affect the validity of the order).

Go v. Holder, 744 F.3d 604 (9th Cir. Mar. 7, 2014) (the specific time and number limitations on motions to reopen, 8 C.F.R. 1003.2(c), apply to motions to reopen that arise under the Convention Against Torture).

Unlike circuit courts, where only an en banc decision can overrule a three-judge panel, a three-member panel of the Board can overrule any prior precedential decision. See, e.g., Matter of Alyazji, 25 I&N Dec. 397 (BIA 2011). Presumably, this is because a decision can only be designated as precedential following a vote in which it receives the support of a majority of permanent Board members. 8 CFR 1003.1(g). Thus, even when a decision only contains the names of three members, it has the support of a majority of the Board's permanent members. Thanks to Ben Winograd.

Matter of Abdelghany, 26 I&N Dec. 254, 269 (BIA 2014)(the BIA drew no distinction, for the purpose of retroactivity of eligibility for relief under former INA 212(c), between convictions at trial or guilty pleas, and found unpersuasive precedential decisions demanding a showing of detrimental reliance on the availability of relief: a lawful permanent resident convicted after trial need not demonstrate that he acted or could have acted in reliance on the availability of 212(c) relief when structuring his conduct.

The BIA explained:

If an otherwise qualifying LPR is removable or deportable by virtue of a plea or conviction between Apr. 24, 1996 and Apr. 1, 1997, 212(c) relief is available unless: (1) proceedings were commenced on or after Apr.

United States v. Barrios-Siguenza, 747 F.3d 1222, 1223 (9th Cir. Apr. 9, 2014) (We were assured at oral argument that Barrios will return for trial should the government choose to retry him and parole him into the country for that purpose. Cf. United States v. Leal"Del Carmen, 697 F.3d 964, 975 (9th Cir. 2012) (discussing the Attorney General's authority to parole aliens into the country to testify in criminal prosecutions (citing 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)(A))).

Perez-Palafox v. Holder, 744 F.3d 1138 (9th Cir. Mar. 11, 2014) (California conviction for transportation of methamphetamine, in violation of California Health and Safety Code 11379(a), constituted a particularly serious crime for purposes of barring withholding of removal).

Montoya v. Holder, 744 F.3d 614 (9th Cir. Mar. 7, 2014) (applying the IIRAIRA reinstatement statute, 8 U.S.C. 1231(a)(5) (the alien is not eligible and may not apply for any relief under this chapter), to petitioner was not impermissibly retroactive even though her brother had filed a Form I-130 petition for alien relative on her behalf before the Act's effective date, because she took no pre-enactment action sufficient to create a vested right to apply for adjustment of status).

Urbina v. Holder, __ F.3d __ (4th Cir. Mar. 17, 2014) (service of notice to appears stopped time for cancellation of removal purposes even though the notice contained missing charges, and incorrect information).