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).

Arredondo v. Holder, 623 F.3d 1317 (9th Cir. Nov. 2, 2010) (the court of appeals cannot affirm the BIA on a ground on which it did not rely); following Naas v. INS, 217 F.3d 646, 658 n. 16 (9th Cir. 2000).

Lewis v. Holder, 625 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. Nov. 8, 2010) (BIA's reissuance of its decision triggers a new thirty-day period within which to file petition for review).

Delgado-Sobalvarro v. Attorney General of U.S., 625 F.3d 782 (3d Cir. Nov. 2, 2010) (petitioners were not eligible to adjust status under INA 245 on the basis of their INA 236 conditional parole, since conditional parole does not constitute parole into the United States for the purposes of adjustment of status under INA 245).

Barnes v. Holder, 625 F.3d 801 (4th Cir. Nov. 10, 2010) (removal proceedings may only be terminated pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 1239.2(f) where the DHS has presented an affirmative communication attesting to the alien's prima facie eligibility for naturalization).

De la Paz v. Holder, 640 F.3d 650 (6th Cir. Nov. 8, 2010) (circuit court has jurisdiction to review reinstatement order within 30 days of issuance, under 8 U.S.C. 1252(b)).

De la Paz v. Holder, 640 F.3d 650, 654 (6th Cir. Nov. 8, 2010) ("[T[he government agrees, the 30-day limitations period set forth in 1252(b)(1) applies to petitions for review of reinstatement orders just as it does to removal orders. The government then notes that DHS entered its reinstatement order on July 10, 2008, and that Villegas did not file her petition until March 5, 2009 " which was more than 30 days after the order was entered. Thus, the government argues, we lack jurisdiction to review the order.