See Legal Action Center Litigation Issue Page summarizing litigation regarding the government's interim rule allowing USCIS to adjudicate the adjustment application of "arriving aliens" in removal proceedings. It provides links to selected pleadings and other related resources. AILA Doc. No. 10080969.

"Diversion" under Kansas law is arguably not a conviction for immigration purposes because the process involves an agreement between the defendant and prosecutor, with no punishment or restriction imposed by a judge.
Thanks to David Link

Ginters v. Frazier, 614 F.3d 822 (8th Cir. Aug. 5, 2010) (declaratory judgment granted holding jurisdictional bar of 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) did not preclude
judicial review of the denial of an I-130 petition).

Villanueva v. Holder, 615 F.3d 913 (8th Cir. Aug. 5, 2010) (noncitizen that is inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(C)(i)(I) is not eligible for adjustment of status pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1255(i)).

Molina Jerez v. Holder, 625 F.3d 1058 (8th Cir. Aug. 25, 2010) (the court lacked jurisdiction to review underlying factual findings or discretionary judgments in denial of NACARA special rule cancellation of removal).

Molina Jerez v. Holder, 625 F.3d 1058 (8th Cir. Aug. 25, 2010) (court did not err in applying reinstatement of removal provision retroactively).

Saleheen v. Holder, 618 F.3d 957 (8th Cir. Aug. 27, 2010) (no jurisdiction where BIA opinion plainly states relief was denied as a matter of discretion).

Mendoza v. Holder, 606 F.3d 1137 (9th Cir. Jun. 2, 2010) (conviction still exists after vacatur granted for rehabilitative purposes only; any vacatur granted under Ariz.Rev.Stat. 13-907 is rehabilitative, and therefore still a conviction for immigration purposes), following Murillo-Espinoza v. INS, 261 F.3d 771, 773-74 (9th Cir. 2001).

Mendoza v. Holder, 606 F.3d 1137 (9th Cir. Jun. 2, 2010) (no res judicata bar when previously known conviction was paired with a new conviction to trigger removal for multiple crimes of moral turpitude).

Mendoza v. Holder, 606 F.3d 1137 (9th Cir. Jun. 2, 2010) (no res judicata bar when previously known conviction was paired with a new conviction to trigger removal for multiple crimes of moral turpitude).