Practice Advisory on Matter of Alyazji, 23 I. & N. Dec. 754 (BIA 2005) (Adjustment of Status Following an Admission Does Not Re-Start the Five- Year Clock for Purposes of the Moral Turpitude Deportation Ground), overruling in part Matter of Shanu, 23 I&N Dec. 754 (BIA 2005)
Kathy Brady, Immigrant Legal Resource Center, Feb. 28, 2011.
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2011/02/practice-advisory-o...

Noncitizens facing immigration detention and the advocates who represent them face a myriad of legal issues, ranging from eligibility for bond or parole, the location of and transfer between detention facilities, appearances in Immigration Court and eligibility for relief from removal, and harsh detention conditions.

In Judulang v. Holder, Supreme Court Case No. 10-694, the Court agreed to hear a case about the continued availability of 212(c) relief. The question presented is: Whether a lawful permanent resident who was convicted by guilty plea of an offense that renders him deportable and excludable under differently phrased statutory subsections, but who did not depart and reenter the United States between his conviction and the commencement of removal proceedings, is categorically foreclosed from seeking discretionary relief from removal under former INA 212(c). See Matter of Blake, 23 I&N Dec.

"This advisory concerns the Ninth Circuits recent decision in Diouf v. Napolitano, 634 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2011). Diouf is the latest in a series of Ninth Circuit decisions addressing whether the government may subject individuals to immigration detention for a prolonged period of time without a bond hearing where the government must show that continued detention is justified. Diouf extends the Ninth Circuits previous decision in Casas-Castrillon v. Department of Homeland Security, 535 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2008), which held that individuals initially subject to detention under 8 U.S.C.

Efagene v. Holder, ___ F.3d ___, ___, 2011 WL 1614299 (10th Cir. Apr. 29, 2011) (the BIA's interpretation of moral turpitude to reach so far as to encompass the Colorado misdemeanor offense of failure to register is not a reasonable policy choice for the agency to make.); citing Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 845 (1984) (a court gives deference to an agency's interpretation of a statute Congress charged it with administering if the statute is silent or ambiguous on the question at hand and the agency makes a reasonable policy choice).

Efagene v. Holder, ___ F.3d ___, ___, 2011 WL 1614299 (10th Cir. Apr. 29, 2011) (Colorado misdemeanor conviction of failure to register as a sex offender, in violation of Colo.Rev.Stat.

Perez-Mejia v. Holder, ___ F.3d ___, 2011 WL 1496990 (9th Cir. Apr. 21, 2011) (California conviction of possession of cocaine for sale, in violation of Health and Safety Code 11351, is not necessarily a controlled substances offense for purposes of triggering inadmissibility where the record of conviction is silent on the substance involved; admission of the respondent in the course of proceedings is insufficient to establish inadmissibility, since the admission is not part of the accepted record of conviction).

Garfias-Rodriguez v. Holder, ___ F.3d ___, No. 09-72603 (9th Cir. Apr. 11, 2011) (a petitioner who is inadmissible for unlawful presence under the three- or 10-year bars of INA 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(I) cannot apply for adjustment of status under INA 245(i)).

Reyes-Torres v. Holder, ___ F.3d ___, ___, 2011 WL 1312570 (9th Cir. Apr. 7, 2011) (the government bears the burden to prove that a conviction was vacated solely for immigration purposes, and is thus still a conviction for immigration purposes, and the BIA must make this determination before the circuit court can address it).

Barma v. Holder, ___ F.3d ___, 2011 WL 1237608 (7th Cir. Apr.