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.

Mata-Guerrero v. Holder, 627 F.3d 256 (7th Cir. Nov. 24, 2010) (case remanded for the BIA to apply Matter of Silva-Trevino to determine whether petitioner's conviction for failure to register as a sex offender, under Wisconsin Statute 301.45(2)(a), was a crime of moral turpitude).

NOTE: The court rejected the application of Matter of Tobar-Lobo, 24 I. & N. Dec.

Champion v. Holder, 626 F.3d 952 (7th Cir. Nov. 22, 2010) (court has jurisdiction to review whether the Immigration Judge and BIA took sufficient notice of facts relevant in determining hardship for purposes of non-LPR cancellation of removal).

Champion v. Holder, 626 F.3d 952 (7th Cir. Nov. 22, 2010) (court has jurisdiction to review whether the Immigration Judge and BIA took sufficient notice of facts relevant in determining hardship for purposes of non-LPR cancellation of removal).

Saavedra-Figueroa v. Holder, 625 F.3d 621 (9th Cir. Nov. 5, 2010) (If the BIA issues or relies on a precedential determination to conclude that a particular crime is a CIMT, we accord it Chevron deference; otherwise, we defer to the BIA's determination only to the extent that it has power to persuade (Skidmore deference).), discussing Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 910-11, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984); Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134, 65 S.Ct. 161, 89 L.Ed. 124 (1944)).

Saavedra-Figueroa v. Holder, 625 F.3d 621 (9th Cir. Nov. 5, 2010) (California misdemeanor conviction of false imprisonment, in violation of Penal Code 236, was not a categorical crime of moral turpitude, because crime did not require noncitizen to have the intent to harm necessary for the crime to be base, vile or depraved).

Waugh v. Holder, 642 F.3d 1279, 1283 (10th Cir. Jun. 22, 2011) (DHS does not need to establish that criminal counsel gave proper immigration advice under Padilla v. Kentucky in order to establish deportability), citing United States v. Adame-Orozco, 607 F.3d 647, 653 (10th Cir. 2010) (that while an alien may have the right to pursue appellate or collateral relief for an aggravated felony conviction under various provisions of state and federal law, the government need not wait until all these avenues are exhausted before deporting him.).

In Padilla v. Kentucky, the Supreme Court implied that a conviction that was vacated on a ground of legal invalidity, such as ineffective assistance of counsel, no longer existed for immigration purposes. This rejects the argument that the 1996 statutory definition of conviction, INA 101(a)(48)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(48)(A), does not expressly state that post-conviction relief eliminates a conviction for immigration purposes and therefore post-conviction relief does not do so. Padilla therefore suggests that the Fifth Circuit decisions in Discipio v. Ashcroft, 417 F.3d 448, 450 (5th Cir.