Planes v. Holder, ___ F.3d ___, ___, 2011 WL 2619105 (9th Cir. Jul. 5, 2011) (Accordingly, nothing in Navarro"Lopez disturbs the longstanding rule that crimes that have fraud as an element, such as Planes's convictions at issue here, are categorically crimes involving moral turpitude.); citing Navarro"Lopez v. Gonzales, 503 F.3d 1063, 1074 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc).

Planes v. Holder, ___ F.3d ___, ___, 2011 WL 2619105 (9th Cir. Jul. 5, 2011) (California conviction of delivering or making a check with insufficient funds with intent to defraud, in violation of Penal Code 476a(a), was a fraud offense and thus categorically a crime involving moral turpitude).

Planes v. Holder, ___ F.3d ___, ___, 2011 WL 2619105 (9th Cir. Jul. 5, 2011) (federal conviction of possessing 15 or more access devices, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1029(a)(3), was a fraud offense and thus categorically a crime involving moral turpitude).

Note. This decision seems very poorly reasoned. It ignores pertinent authority. E.g., Paredes v. Attorney General, 528 F.3d 196 (3d Cir. 2008); Matter of Cardenas-Abreu, 24 I&N Dec. 795 (BIA 2009).

Hernandez-Cruz v. Holder, ___ F.3d ___, ___ n.14 (9th Cir. Jul.7, 2011) (The BIA apparently believed that Hernandez-Cruzs guilty plea admitted that he entered the building with the intent to commit larceny and the intent to commit some other felony. Although understandable, that conclusion is incorrect; under California law, Hernandez-Cruzs plea admitted that he had one of those intentions, but not necessarily both. See, e.g., People v. Moussabeck, 68 Cal. Rptr. 3d 877, 881-82 (Cal. Ct. App.

Texas law conflicts with federal immigration law as to whether deferred adjudication constitutes a conviction. Ex parte Welch, 981 S.W.2d 183, 185 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (Deferred adjudication is not a conviction.). But see Matter of Punu, 22 I. & N. Dec. 224, 230 (B.I.A. 1998) (holding that deferred adjudication in Texas constitutes a conviction for purposes of immigration law).

Matter of Bustamante, 25 I&N Dec. 564 (BIA 2011) (the bar to cancellation of removal, in INA 240A(b)(1)(C), 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)(1)(C), which precludes an alien who has been convicted of an offense under INA 212(a)(2), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2), from establishing eligibility for relief, may not be overcome by a waiver under INA 212(h)).
http://www.justice.gov/eoir/vll/intdec/vol25/3722.pdf

Wu v. Holder, 646 F.3d 133 (2nd Cir. Jul. 19, 2011) (fugitive disentitlement doctrine applies to noncitizens who fail to reply to bag & baggage letters and fail to submit themselves for deportation; fugitive disentitlement does not apply where, as in this case, the noncitizen's location is well known and it is clear that the noncitizen is making no attempt to flee the government or the jurisdiction).

Flores-Nova v. Attorney General of the U.S., __ F.3d __, 2011 WL 2989709 (3d Cir. Jul. 25, 2011) (no humanitarian exception exists to the 90/180 day absence rule breaking periods of continuous physical presence for non-LPRs).

Marin-Garcia v. Holder, 647 F.3d 666, 2011 WL 3130273 (7th Cir. Jul. 22, 2011) (noncitizen applicant for non-LPR cancellation has third party standing to challenge BIA determination that denial of his cancellation of removal was unconstitutional as applied to his two USC daughters, who were required to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship).

Marin-Garcia v. Holder, 647 F.3d 666, 2011 WL 3130273 (7th Cir. Jul. 22, 2011) (noncitizen applicant for non-LPR cancellation has third party standing to challenge BIA determination that denial of his cancellation of removal was unconstitutional as applied to his two USC daughters, who were required to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship).