Matter of Ruiz-Lopez, 25 I&N Dec. 551 (BIA 2011) (maximum possible sentence for an offense, rather than the standard range of sentencing under a States sentencing guidelines, determines eligibility for the petty offense exception under INA 212(a)(2)(A)(ii)(II), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)(A)(ii)(II); but see United States v. Simmons, ___ F. 3d ___ (4th Cir. Aug 17, 2011)(where state sentence statute prohibits sentence in excess of one year, state conviction is not a felony under the federal definition even though statute defining the offense permits a greater sentence).

Matter of Perez, 22 I&N Dec. 689 (BIA 1999) (admission as a temporary resident for amnesty applicants " prior to grant of permanent residency " counts as admission in any status for purposes of continuous presence requirement for cancellation of removal for Lawful Permanent Residents, under INA 240 A (a), 8 U.S.C. 12296 (a)).

Delgado v. Quarantillo, 643 F.3d 52, 2011 WL 2418741 (2d Cir. Jun. 17, 2011) (a district court lacks jurisdiction over an indirect challenge to an order of removal in the form of a mandamus action to compel USCIS to make a determination on the merits of respondent's I"212 application, because the indirect challenge to the reinstated order of removal is barred by 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(5) which precludes challenges to final removal orders).

United States v. Ramos, 623 F.3d 672, 2010 WL 3720208 (9th Cir. Sept. 24, 2010) (stipulated removal, under 8 C.F.R. 1003.25, violated due process where noncitizen was not informed of right to appeal in a language the noncitizen could understand and failure to obtain proper waiver of counsel also violated Fifth Amendment rights; however, no prejudice was shown for purposes of challenging illegal re-entry conviction by challenging underlying removal since noncitizen was ineligible for any form of relief).

Galindo-Romero v. Holder, 621 F.3d 924 (9th Cir. Sept. 2, 2010), amended, 640 F.3d 873 (9th Cir. May 09, 2011) (court of appeals lacks jurisdiction to decide merits of petition for review where decisions of the BIA and IJ did not result in final order of removal).

United States v. Espinoza-Morales, 621 F.3d 1141, 1150 (9th Cir. Sept. 10, 2010) ("Even though the state charged Espinoza in the conjunctive-with accomplishing the penetration by means of force, violence duress, menace and fear-this charge could have supported a conviction based on duress alone."), citing In re Bushman, 463 P.2d 727, 732 (Ca. 1970).

Duhaney v. Attorney General, 621 F.3d 340 (3d Cir. Sept. 14, 2010), cert. denied (2011) (the government was not precluded, by res judicata, from charging respondent with removal in new proceedings based upon (1) convictions that existed at the time of the original proceedings, and that were known to the government, but that the government chose not to allege at the original proceedings, or (2) a conviction previously waived under INA 212(c) that became an aggravated felony after the termination of the original proceedings).

Duhaney v. Attorney General, 621 F.3d 340 (3d Cir. Sept. 14, 2010), cert. denied (2011) (the government was not precluded, by res judicata, from charging respondent with removal in new proceedings based upon (1) convictions that existed at the time of the original proceedings, and that were known to the government, but that the government chose not to allege at the original proceedings, or (2) a conviction previously waived under INA 212(c) that became an aggravated felony after the termination of the original proceedings).

Bokhari v. Holder, 622 F.3d 357 (5th Cir. Sept. 29, 2010) (employment authorization under 8 C.F.R. 274a.12(b)(20) is not lawful status as defined in 8 C.F.R. 1245.1(d)(1)(ii)).

Barakat v. Holder, 621 F.3d 398 (6th Cir. Aug. 18, 2010) (government failed to bear its burden of proving that petitioner's conviction was vacated for rehabilitative or immigration reasons).