Matter of Reza-Murillo, 25 I&N Dec. 296 (BIA 2010) (a grant of Family Unity Program benefits is not an admission to the United States for purposes of establishing that noncitizen has resided in the United States for seven years after admission for purposes of LPR cancellation of removal).

Matter of Quilantan, 25 I. & N. Dec. 285 (BIA 2010) (where an alien entered U.S. through a border checkpoint by car with U.S. citizen friend driving and immigration officer only spoke to driver and allowed the car to enter, the alien proved she was admitted to the U.S. pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 101(a)(13)(A), because she need only prove procedural regularity in her entry and not that she was questioned by immigration authorities or admitted in a particular status), reaffirming Matter of Areguillin, 17 I&N Dec. 308 (BIA 1980).

Garces v. US Atty. Gen., 611 F.3d 1337 (11th Cir. Jul.

Alvarado v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 610 F.3d 1311 (11th Cir. Jul. 8, 2010) (respondent's initial request for voluntary departure after the Immigration Judge issued an oral decision denying other relief was not untimely; at conclusion of proceedings includes a request for voluntary departure after IJ issues oral decision).

Padilla-Romero v. Holder, 611 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. Jul. 9, 2010) (removal of LPR interrupts continuous presence for purposes of INA 240A(a)(1); a noncitizen who was once a lawful permanent resident for five years, but lost such status following an order of removal, is no longer eligible for LPR cancellation of removal).

Hernandez-Velasquez v. Holder, 611 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. Jul. 14, 2010) (denial of motion to reopen reversed where respondent did not receive BIA decision affirming removal order despite mailing change of address form to BIA; sworn affidavit was sufficient to establish change of address was mailed).

Vega v. Holder, 611 F.3d 1168, 1171 (9th Cir. Jul. 19, 2010) (petitioners motion to reopen denied as untimely, where motion to reopen had to be filed within 90 days of a final administrative order of removal and here the final order of removal is the final administrative decision, rendered in the proceeding sought to be reopened, which is the BIAs initial merits determination, not the denial of petitioners motion to reconsider.).

Marin-Rodriguez v. Holder, 612 F.3d 591 (7th Cir. Jul. 14, 2010) (BIA has jurisdiction to reconsider its decision after petitioners removal, because deportation from the United States is not equivalent to withdrawal of an application by voluntary departure from the United States and the INA specifically grants the BIA authority to reconsider or reopen its own decisions).

Estrada-Ramos v. Holder, 611 F.3d 318 (7th Cir. 2010) (expungement of a conviction for a drug charge involving cocaine upheld as a conviction for INA purposes, because guilty plea was set aside and dismissed for ameliorative purposes, not for any procedural or substantial defects in the proceedings.), following Ali v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 722, 727 (7th Cir. 2005), Matter of Pickering, 23 I. & N. Dec. 621, 624 (BIA 2003).
PCN:8.3;CD4:11.18;AF:6.12;CMT3:10.11;SH:4.27

Villegas De la Paz v. Holder, 614 F.3d 605 (6th Cir. Jul. 30, 2010) (court has jurisdiction to review, under 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(D), constitutional questions or questions of law related to reinstatement of removal).