Wellington v. Holder, 623 F.3d 115 (2d Cir. Oct. 20, 2011) (No. 09-4111) (a Certificate of Relief or similar state rehabilitative treatment does not preclude use of the underlying offense as a basis for removal or as a basis for ineligibility for relief, where the state treatment was not related to a procedural or substantive defect in the criminal proceedings).

Ahmed v. Holder, 624 F.3d 150 (2d Cir. Oct. 27, 2010) (court of appeals lacked jurisdiction to review the BIA's discretionary denial of a waiver of inadmissibity under INA 237(a)(1)(H), 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(1)(H)).

Thomas v. Attorney General of U.S., 625 F.3d 134 (3d Cir. Oct. 26, 2010) (police officers' written statements are therefore not part of the record of conviction that may be consulted as part of the modified categorical analysis).

Planes v. Holder, ___ F.3d ___, ___, 2011 WL 2619105 (9th Cir. Jul. 5, 2011) (an alien who is time- and number-barred from obtaining consideration of a motion to reopen as a matter of right may petition the Board to reopen his or her case sua sponte under 8 C.F.R. 1003.2(a); cf. In re Rodriguez"Ruiz, 22 I. & N. Dec. 1378, 1380 (BIA 2000) (concluding that a conviction vacated on the merits cannot form the basis for an alien's removal).

Planes v. Holder, ___ F.3d ___, ___, 2011 WL 2619105 (9th Cir. Jul. 5, 2011) (Accordingly, nothing in Navarro"Lopez disturbs the longstanding rule that crimes that have fraud as an element, such as Planes's convictions at issue here, are categorically crimes involving moral turpitude.); citing Navarro"Lopez v. Gonzales, 503 F.3d 1063, 1074 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc).

Planes v. Holder, ___ F.3d ___, ___, 2011 WL 2619105 (9th Cir. Jul. 5, 2011) (California conviction of delivering or making a check with insufficient funds with intent to defraud, in violation of Penal Code 476a(a), was a fraud offense and thus categorically a crime involving moral turpitude).

Planes v. Holder, ___ F.3d ___, ___, 2011 WL 2619105 (9th Cir. Jul. 5, 2011) (federal conviction of possessing 15 or more access devices, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1029(a)(3), was a fraud offense and thus categorically a crime involving moral turpitude).

Note. This decision seems very poorly reasoned. It ignores pertinent authority. E.g., Paredes v. Attorney General, 528 F.3d 196 (3d Cir. 2008); Matter of Cardenas-Abreu, 24 I&N Dec. 795 (BIA 2009).

Hernandez-Cruz v. Holder, ___ F.3d ___, ___ n.14 (9th Cir. Jul.7, 2011) (The BIA apparently believed that Hernandez-Cruzs guilty plea admitted that he entered the building with the intent to commit larceny and the intent to commit some other felony. Although understandable, that conclusion is incorrect; under California law, Hernandez-Cruzs plea admitted that he had one of those intentions, but not necessarily both. See, e.g., People v. Moussabeck, 68 Cal. Rptr. 3d 877, 881-82 (Cal. Ct. App.

Rodriguez-Valencia v. Holder, ___ F.3d ___, 2011 WL 2899605 (9th Cir. Jul. 21, 2011) (per curiam) (California offense of willfully manufacturing, intentionally selling, and knowingly possessing for sale more than 1,000 articles bearing a counterfeit trademark, in violation of Penal Code 350(a)(2), has intent to defraud as an element); see Tall v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 1115, 1117, 1119-1120 (9th Cir.2008) (California Penal Code 350 is an inherently fraudulent crime.).

Texas law conflicts with federal immigration law as to whether deferred adjudication constitutes a conviction. Ex parte Welch, 981 S.W.2d 183, 185 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (Deferred adjudication is not a conviction.). But see Matter of Punu, 22 I. & N. Dec. 224, 230 (B.I.A. 1998) (holding that deferred adjudication in Texas constitutes a conviction for purposes of immigration law).