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).

U.S. v. Monday, 614 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. Aug. 2, 2010) (prosecution is not required to prove intent to permanently deprive in order to convict defendant for violation of 18 U.S.C. 1709, theft of mail by postal employee).

Montero-Martinez v. Ashcroft, 277 F.3d 1137, 1144-45 (9th Cir. 2002) (an adult son or daughter over 21 does not qualify as a "child" for purposes of showing exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a spouse, parent or child).

Kone v. Holder, 620 F.3d 760 (7th Cir. Aug. 31, 2010) (petition for review granted, as BIA effectively only addressed half of petitioner's arguments).

Sanchez v. Holder, 614 F.3d 760 (8th Cir. Aug. 2, 2010) (no statutory support for petitioner's argument that the burden of proof rested on the government in this case to prove his conviction of an aggravated felony to disqualify him from eligibility for cancellation of removal).
Note, this case did not cite or discuss Sandoval-Lua v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir. 2007).

Guardado-Garcia v. Holder, 615 F.3d 900 (8th Cir. Aug. 4, 2010) (federal conviction of violating 42 U.S.C. 408(a)(7)(B) constituted crime of moral turpitude, since intent to deceive for the purpose of wrongfully obtaining a benefit was an essential element of this offense; the fact that Congress chose to exempt a certain class of noncitizens from prosecution for certain acts did not necessarily mean that those acts do not involve moral turpitude).

Guardado-Garcia v. Holder, 615 F.3d 900 (8th Cir. Aug. 4, 2010) (federal conviction of misusing a social security number, in violation of 42 U.S.C. 408(a)(7)(B), constituted a crime of moral turpitude, since the offense is committed with intent to deceive the government), following Lateef v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 592 F.3d 926, 929 (8th Cir.2010).

Gallimore v. Attorney General, 619 F.3d 216, 227 (3d Cir. Aug. 20, 2010) ("While we give deference to the decisions of the BIA ... we cannot give meaningful review to a decision in which the BIA does not explain how it came to its conclusion." Awolesi v. Ashcroft, 341 F.3d 227, 228-29 (3d Cir.2003). Here, the BIA's failure to explain its interpretation (if any) handicaps entirely our ability to review it for reasonableness." (footnote omitted)).

Aguilar-Mejia v. Holder, 616 F.3d 699 (7th Cir. Aug. 6, 2010) ("Although we must deny Aguilar-Mejias petition, we close by noting that we are aware of the exceptional humanitarian concerns raised in this case. . . . Missing his medication for even a brief period could be a literal death sentence. As the IJ noted, "almost all of [Aguilar-Mejias] witnesses testified that . . . the treatment [for AIDS] is not easily accessed and not readily available" in the countries designated for removal.