Cohen v. Longshore, 621 F.3d 1311 (10th Cir. Oct. 19, 2010) (immigration detainee brought civil rights action which was improperly dismissed: petitioner who has no available habeas remedy, through no lack of diligence on his part, is not barred by Heck from pursuing 1983 claim for unlawful confinement).

The offense of misuse of a social security number, in violation of 42 U.S.C. 408(a)(7)(B), may or may not be considered a crime of moral turpitude. For example, use of the card to open a checking account would not appear to be fraudulent, and thus not a CMT. The statute should therefore be considered divisible. Sale of fraudulent immigration documents is clearly CMT. Matter of Flores, 17 I. & N. Dec. 225, 1980 WL 121870 (BIA 1980). Use or possession of a false social security document with specific intent to defraud is a CMT. Matter of Serna, 20 I. & N. Dec. 579, 581 (BIA 1992).

Yule Kim, Statutory Interpretation: General Principles and Recent Trends, Congressional Research Service Report for Congress (Aug. 31, 2008);
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/97-589.pdf

Higgs v. Atty. Gen. of the United States, 655 F.3d 333 (3d Cir. Aug. 25, 2011) (a petitioner has satisfied his administrative remedies if he made some effort, however insufficient, to place the Board on notice of a straightforward issue being raised on appeal.); citing Lin v. Att'y Gen., 543 F.3d 114, 120 (3d Cir.2008); citing Joseph v. Att'y Gen., 465 F.3d 123, 126 (3d Cir. 2006).

Simon v. Holder, 654 F.3d 440 (3d Cir. Aug. 17, 2011) (BIA abused its discretion by denying motion to reconsider in that it failed to apply the principles articulated Matter of Hashmi to petitioner's case); citing Matter of Hashimi, 24 I. & N. Dec. 785, 792 (BIA 2009) (setting forth criteria to be considered in evaluating whether to grant a motion to continue removal proceedings).

Espinal v. Attorney General, 653 F.3d 213 (3d Cir. Aug. 3, 2011) (8 C.F.R. 1003.2(d), otherwise known as the post-departure bar, is ultra vires to 8 U.S.C. 1229a(c)(6)(A), (7)(A), which specifically grants an alien the right to file one motion to reconsider and one motion to reopen without any geographic limitation on that right: the plain text of the statute provides each alien with the right to file one motion to reopen and one motion to reconsider, provides time periods during which an alien is entitled to do so, and makes no exception for aliens who are no longer in this country.).

Prestol Espinal v. Attorney General of U.S., 653 F.3d 213 (3d Cir. Aug. 3, 2011) (departure bar to motion to reopen at 8 C.F.R. 1003.2(d) is ultra vires to 8 U.S.C. 1229a(c)(6)(A), (c)(7)(A)).

Rana v. Holder, 654 F.3d 547 (5th Cir. Aug. 30, 2011) (an individual who previously received a INA 212(h) waiver of inadmissibility under INA 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II), for a single conviction of possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana, cannot receive a second 212(h) waiver for a separate similar offense; rejecting the argument that any new waiver would only relate[] to a single offense of simple possession).

Bright v. Holder, 649 F.3d 397 (5th Cir. Aug. 8, 2011) (court lacked jurisdiction to review under the fugitive disentitlement doctrine where noncitizen failed to appear at DHS office for removal as ordered by immigration court; doctrine applied even though noncitizen maintained same address, DHS was aware of the address, and DHS made no attempt to locate or arrest following failure to appear).

Hachem v. Holder, 656 F.3d 430 (6th Cir. Aug. 29, 2011) (automatic termination of voluntary departure under 8 C.F.R. 1240.26(i) is valid exercise of AG discretion).