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).

Matter of Pedroza, 25 I. & N. Dec. 312 (BIA 2010) (conviction for crime involving moral turpitude does not render noncitizen ineligible for cancellation of removal under INA 240A(b)(1)(C), if his crime is punishable by imprisonment for a period of less than a year and qualifies for the petty offense exception under INA 212(a)(2)(A)(ii)(II)), following Matter of Cortez, 25 I. & N. Dec. 301 (BIA 2010).

Matter of Cortez, 25 I. & N. Dec. 301 (BIA Aug. 13, 2010) (California violation of Welfare and Institutions Code 10980(c)(2), welfare fraud, is a crime involving moral turpitude).

Matter of Cortez, 25 I. & N. Dec. 301 (BIA Aug. 13, 2010) (an alien who has been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude for which a sentence of a year or longer may be imposed has been convicted of an offense "described under" INA 237(a)(2), and is therefore ineligible for non-LPR cancellation under INA 240A(b)(1)(C), regardless of whether the noncitizen qualifies for the petty offense exception under INA 212(a)(2)(A)(ii)(II)), clarifying Matter of Almanza, 24 I. & N. Dec. 771 (BIA 2009), explaining Matter of Gonzalez-Zoquiapan, 24 I. & N. Dec.

Argueta v. Holder, 617 F.3d 109 (2d Cir. Aug. 6, 2010) (Immigration Judge not barred, by NACARA regulatory requirement of showing only seven years good moral character, from considering older criminal convictions in determining whether to grant relief as a matter of discretion).

Zhang v. Holder, 617 F.3d 650 (2nd Cir. Aug. 12, 2010) (BIA entitled to deference regarding interpretation of "departure bar" on motions to reopen under 8 C.F.R. 1003.2(a, d)).

Matter of Mendez-Orellana, 25 I&N Dec. 254 (BIA Jun. 9, 2010) (the antique firearm exception in 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(3) is an affirmative defense that must be proven by the noncitizen after the DHS has established the conviction by clear and convincing evidence).

NOTE: the BIA did not specify the standard (e.g. preponderance of the evidence) by which the noncitizen must prove the exception applies.

Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, 130 S.Ct 2577 (Jun. 14, 2010) ("Finally, as we noted in Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1, 11 n. 8, 125 S.Ct. 377, 160 L.Ed.2d 271 (2004), ambiguities in criminal statutes referenced in immigration laws should be construed in the noncitizen's favor. And here the critical language appears in a criminal statute, 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(2).")

The Supreme Court holds successive habeas petitioners cannot pursue relief in the federal courts. Tyler v. Cain, 533 U.S. 656 (2001) (a petitioner cannot take advantage of the successive habeas petition rule, 28 U.S.C. 2244(b)(2), unless the Supreme Court has expressly held in a collateral review case that the earlier decision is retroactive). While 28 U.S.C. 2244(d)(1)(C) has slightly different language than 2244(b)(2), the reasoning in Tyler would effectively preclude an argument under 28 U.S.C.