Arobelidze v. Holder, 653 F.3d 513 (7th Cir. July 27, 2011 (... non-precedential Board decisions that do not rely on binding Board precedent are not afforded Chevron deference. Such a decision is entitled to respect ... only to the extent that [it has the] power to persuade.); citing Bailey v. Pregis Innovative Packaging, Inc., 600 F.3d 748, 751 (7th Cir.2010) (quotations omitted)).); see United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218, 234"35, 121 S.Ct. 2164, 150 L.Ed.2d 292 (2001) (citing Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134, 65 S.Ct. 161, 89 L.Ed. 124 (1944)).

United States v. Benitez-De Los Santos, 650 F.3d 1157 (8th Cir. Aug. 18, 2011) (clerks minutes and abstract of judgment form part of the record of conviction, and are sufficient to establish that defendant pleaded guilty to specific count charged against him, for purposes of showing that controlled substance involved in the conviction was the one identified in the charge); following United States v. Snellenberger, 548 F.3d 699, 702 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).

United States v. Crowder, 656 F.3d 870 (9th Cir. Aug. 30, 2011) (affirming federal conviction for failing to register as a sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), 18 U.S.C. 2250(a), where the government is not required to prove that a defendant knew that SORNA imposed a registration requirement in order to sustain a conviction under the statute).

Note: This strengthens the argument that a federal conviction under 18 U.S.C 2250(a), is not a crime involving moral turpitude.

Delgado v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir. Aug. 19, 2011)(No. 03-74442) (court of appeals has jurisdiction to review BIA decision that noncitizen was convicted of a particularly serious crime).

Delgado v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir. Aug. 19, 2011) (criminal offense need not be an aggravated felony to be a particularly serious crime to disqualify a noncitizen from eligibility for withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii)).

Delgado v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir. Aug. 19, 2011) (Attorney General has authority to designate offenses as particularly serious crimes through case-by-case adjudication as well as by regulation, for purposes of eligibility for political asylum).

Delgado v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir. Aug. 19, 2011) (conviction for driving under the influence could be considered particularly serious crime to disqualify a noncitizen from eligibility for withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii)).

United States v. Aguila-Montes de Oca, 655 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. Aug. 11, 2011) (en banc) (modified categorical analysis applies even [w]hen the crime of conviction is missing an element of the generic crime altogether.); overruling Navarro-Lopez v. Gonzales, 503 F.3d 1063, 1073 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc).

Valencia v. Mukasey, 548 F.3d 1261 (9th Cir. Dec. 4, 2008) (Immigration Judge has no duty to inform a respondent of his right to apply for asylum, withholding of removal or relief under the convention against torture unless the respondent specifically and affirmatively expresses a fear of return to his country of origin).

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.).