Matter of M-A-F-, 26 I&N Dec. 651 (BIA 2015) (where noncitizens first asylum application was filed before May 11, 2005, and a second application was submitted after that date, the filing date later application controls if it is properly viewed as a new application).

Veloz-Luvevano v. Lynch, __ F.3d __ (10th Cir. Aug. 31, 2015) (Colorado conviction for criminal impersonation, in violation of Col.Rev.Stat. 18"5"113(1)(d), for possession of a forged social security card to allow him to work, is a categorical crime of moral turpitude for immigration purposes).

NOTE: The judge in this case had clear distain for the noncitizen, and dismissed out of hand, what were likely legitimate minimum conduct arguments. The court also made no mention of Beltran-Tirado v. INS, 213 F.3d 1179 (9th Cir. 2000).

Garcia v. Lynch, ___ F.3d ___, 2015 WL 4899018 (9th Cir. Aug. 18, 2015) (statutory criminal bar to judicial review at 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(C), does not strip the circuit court of jurisdiction to review the denial of a procedural motion that rests on a ground independent of the conviction that triggered the bar, such as an appeal based upon denial of a motion to continue).

Ramirez Mejia v. Lynch, __ F.3d __ (5th Cir. Jul. 21, 2015) (noncitizens whose removal orders are reinstated following illegal re-entry into the United States may not apply for asylum, since asylum is a form of relief for purposes of the bar to relief under INA 1231(a)(5)), agreeing with Herrera"Molina v. Holder, 597 F.3d 128, 139 (2d Cir. 2010).

Paek v. Attorney General of the US, ___ F.3d ___, 2015 WL 4393910 (3d Cir. Jul. 20, 2015) (INA 212(h) waiving unavailable to noncitizen who committed aggravated felony after admission as a Conditional LPR, since an alien admitted as a lawful permanent resident on a conditional basis qualifies as "an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence" for purposes of the aggravated felony bar to INA 212(h) relief).

Acosta-Olivarria v. Lynch, 799 F.3d 1271 (9th Cir. Aug. 26, 2015) (noncitizen applying for adjustment of immigration status reasonably relied on Perez"Gonzalez v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 783 (9th Cir.2004), before the BIA Matter of Briones, 24 I. & N. Dec. 355 (BIA 2007), a decision directly disagreeing with Perez-Gonzales, despite obvious tension between Ninth Circuit and BIA prior to Briones, that case does not apply retroactively).

Acevedo v. Lynch, ___ F.3d ___, 2015 WL 4999292 (9th Cir. Aug. 24, 2015) (the definition of child in citizenship and naturalization provisions of INA does not include stepchildren).

United States v. Parral-Dominguez, ___ F.3d ___, 2015 WL 4479530 (4th Cir. Jul. 23, 2015) (immigration authorities are bound by interpretation of elements of state offense by states highest court); United States v. Aparicio"Soria, 740 F.3d 152, 154 (4th Cir. 2014) (en banc) (To the extent that the statutory definition of the prior offense has been interpreted by the state's highest court, that interpretation constrains our analysis of the elements of state law.).

9 FAM 40.21(b)a(2) includes the Lujan exception to controlled substances inadmissibility, but requires an advisory opinion before a Lujan exception will be granted. This FAM provision is found at http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86942.pdf

Note that the FAM authors misunderstood and misstated the holding of Nunez-Reyes v. Holder, 646 F.3d 684 (Jul. 14, 2011), when they stated that "state judicial expungements that predate this decision can still be effective for immigration purposes in the Ninth Circuit." This is only partly correct.

Matter of Ordaz, 26 I&N Dec. 637 (BIA 2015) (a notice to appear that was served on an alien but never resulted in the commencement of removal proceedings does not have "stop-time" effect for purposes of establishing eligibility for cancellation of removal pursuant to INA 240A(d)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1229b(d)(1)).

NOTE: This decision could potentially be used to argue for something like repapering (issuing a new NTA to allow noncitizen to have 10 years presence) as a form of prosecutorial discretion, except one would need to intercept the NTA before it is served on the court.