Shewchun v. Holder, 658 F.3d 557 (6th Cir. Sept. 8, 2011) (noncitizen must get agreement from DHS that noncitizen is primafacie eligible for naturalization in order to ask immigration judge to terminate removal proceedings in order to apply for naturalization; although DHS may not adjudicate naturalization application of noncitizen in removal proceedings, DHS may determine prima facie eligibility without making a final determination on the application itself), following Matter of Hidalgo, 24 I. & N. Dec. 103 (BIA 2007); Barnes v. Holder, 625 F.3d 801, 807 (4th Cir. 2010).

Casillas v. Holder, 656 F.3d 273 (6th Cir. Sept. 2, 2011) (court lacks jurisdiction to review enforcement of a removal order that was entered in 1996, but was not enforced until 2009).

Torres-Tristan v. Holder, 56 F.3d 653 (7th Cir. Sept. 1, 2011) (court lacks jurisdiction to review denial of U-visa or I-192 waiver as decisions made outside removal proceedings).

Cole v. Holder, 659 F.3d 762 (9th Cir. Sept. 22, 2011) (petition for review is granted where BIA failed to give reasoned consideration to potentially dispositive expert testimony).

Luna v. Holder, 659 F.3d 753 (9th Cir. Sept. 19, 2011) (the April 26, 2005, deadline to seek a waiver of removal under former INA 212(c), 8 U.S.C. 1182(c), established by 8 C.F.R. 1003.44, is a constitutionally-sound procedural rule; absent some exceptional circumstances, not present here, petitioners that miss the deadline are not entitled to relief).

Saavedra-Figueroa v. Holder, 625 F.3d 621, 627-28 (9th Cir. Nov. 5, 2010) (Regardless of whether we may apply this approach in this case in light of our holding that misdemeanor false imprisonment lacks an element of the generic crime-see Navarro-Lopez v. Gonzales, 503 F.3d 1063, 1073 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc)-the application of the modified categorical approach would make no difference. Although Saavedra-Figueroa admitted both section 236 misdemeanor convictions, there is no record evidence of the factual allegations underlying his second conviction.

Saavedra-Figueroa v. Holder, 625 F.3d 621, 626 & n.4 (9th Cir. Nov. 5, 2010) (We have held that the federal generic definition of a CIMT is a crime involving fraud or conduct that (1) is vile, base, or depraved and (2) violates accepted moral standards. Morales-Garcia v. Holder, 567 F.3d 1058, 1062 & n. 2 (9th Cir.2009). Non-fraudulent CIMTs almost always involve an intent to harm someone. Nunez v. Holder, 594 F.3d 1124, 1131 & n. 4 (9th Cir.2010). FN4. An intent to harm is not always necessary. Nunez, 594 F.3d at 1131 n. 4; see also Matter of Franklin, 20 I. & N. Dec.

Saavedra-Figueroa v. Holder, 625 F.3d 621, 626 & n.4 (9th Cir. Nov. 5, 2010) (Ninth Circuit left open the question whether Matter of Silva-Trevino, 24 I. & N. Dec. 687 (AG 2008), applied retroactively to convictions occurring before it was decided).

Saavedra-Figueroa v. Holder, 625 F.3d 621 (9th Cir. Nov. 5, 2010) (We lack jurisdiction over a petition for review when the BIA reopens an alien's removal proceedings. See Lopez-Ruiz v. Ashcroft, 298 F.3d 886, 887 (9th Cir.2002) (the BIA's reopening of the case divested us of jurisdiction); Timbreza v. Gonzales, 410 F.3d 1082, 1083 (9th Cir.2005) (same); accord Yuan Gao v. Gonzales, 464 F.3d 728, 730 (7th Cir.2006) (where the BIA reconsiders a final order of removal, there is nothing [for the appellate court] to retain jurisdiction of). As we explained in Cordes v.

Arredondo v. Holder, 623 F.3d 1317 (9th Cir. Nov. 2, 2010) (remanding case to the BIA where: (1) the BIAs own decision did not provide legal basis sufficient for review; and (2) the BIAs decision failed to address the reasoning of the immigration judge, and thus the Circuit court also cannot address the reasoning of the immigration judge, and the Circuit court cannot affirm the BIA on a ground upon which the BIA did not rely).