Duane Morris LLP, Maggio + Kattar, and Penn State Laws Center for Immigrants Rights have released a toolkit for practitioners on private bills and deferred action. Developed to help immigration judges, lawyers, public officials, and nonprofit groups navigate what has become a last-resort option for those facing deportation, the toolkit includes the following: 1) Best Practices from attorneys around the country; 2) summary of the laws and procedures governing deferred action and private bills; 3) sample letters of support, exhibit lists and legal briefs; and 4) a resource page.

P. Henning & L. Radek, THE PROSECUTION AND DEFENSE OF PUBLIC
CORRUPTION: THE LAW AND LEGAL STRATEGIES (Oxford U. Press, May, 2011).

Leonardo v. Crawford, ___ F.3d ___, 2011 WL 1814706 (9th Cir. May 13, 2011) (noncitizen was required to exhaust his administrative remedies by appealing to the Board of Immigration Appeals before seeking habeas review of immigration judge's adverse bond determination).

Pannu v. Holder, ___ F.3d ___, 2011 WL 1782959 (9th Cir. May 11, 2011) (remand to BIA to review issue of whether California conviction of failure to register as a sex offender, Penal Code 290(g)(1), categorically constituted a crime of moral turpitude), citing Plasencia-Ayala v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 738, 743 n.2, 747 (9th Cir. 2008) (Nevada conviction for failure to register as a sex offender under a similar law (Nev. Rev. Stat.

Zheng v. Holder, __ F.3d __, 2011 WL 1709849 (9th Cir. May 6, 2011) (BIA erred in failing to consider respondents significant service to the community as a positive factor, separate from rehabilitation, in determining whether to grant relief as a matter of discretion).

Go v. Holder, __ F.3d __, 2011 WL 1678196 (9th Cir. May 5, 2011) (The INA bars an applicant from obtaining asylum and withholding relief when there are serious reasons to believe that he or she committed a serious nonpolitical crime before arriving in the United States. 8 U.S.C. 1158(b)(2)(A)(iii) (asylum), 1231(b)(3)(B)(iii) (withholding). We interpret serious reasons' to believe as being tantamount to probable cause. McMullen v. INS, 788 F.2d 591, 599 (9th Cir.1986), overruled on other grounds by Barapind v. Enomoto, 400 F.3d 744, 751 n. 7 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc) (per curiam).

Paulo v. Holder, ___ F.3d ___, 2011 WL 1663572 (9th Cir. May 4, 2011) (res judicata binds BIA to the final decision of the district court, which held that petitioner, a native and citizen of the Philippines, is eligible for discretionary relief under INA 212(c); issue preclusion bars re-litigation where one party could have raised an issue but failed to do so during the original hearing; even if issue preclusion allows re-litigation in light of a subsequent change in the law, Matter of Blake did not constitute a change in the law).

Afzal v. Gonzales, 203 Fed.Appx. 830, 2006 WL 3054609 (9th Cir. October 27, 2006) (unpublished) (California infraction of petty theft, in violation of Penal Code 490.1, constituted a conviction for immigration purposes because California criminal law considers it a conviction of a crime).

This decision does not even mention the governing immigration law on this subject, Matter of Eslamizar, 23 I. & N. Dec. 684 (BIA Oct.

Frederick v. Holder, ___ F.3d ___, 2011 WL 1642811 (7th Cir. May 3, 2011) (Illinois aggravated felony sexual abuse of minor convictions did not have statutory counterpart to ground of inadmissibility, so noncitizen was not eligible for waiver of deportation under former INA 212(c); court lacks jurisdiction, under 8 U.S.C.

United States v. Garcia-Echavarria, 374 F.3d 440, 445 (6th Cir. 2004) ("To support an order of deportation, a conviction must be final.); Cardenas-Abreu v. Holder, 378 Fed. App'x 59 (2d Cir. 2010) (remanding the question of whether the finality rule still exists to the BIA); cf. Matter of Cardenas-Abreu, 24 I&N Dec. 795 (BIA 2009) (failing to reach the finality issue, but a large majority of the Board believed that the finality rule survived the enactment of INA 101(a)(48)).

Practice Advisory.