Berhane v. Holder, 606 F.3d 819 (6th Cir. Jun. 4, 2010) (determination of whether asylum applicant has committed a serious non-political crime is a non-discretionary decision subject to appellate review; case remanded to the BIA for further explanation of why throwing rocks at Ethiopian police officers would not be considered a political offense sufficient to allow him to qualify for asylum).

Dobrova v. Holder, 607 F.3d 297 (2d Cir. Jun. 9, 2010) (the phrase "previously admitted as a lawful permanent resident" for purposes of barring certain lawful permanent residents from relief under INA 212(h) means any prior admission as a lawful permanent resident, not only the most recent; LPR who later entered without admission was still barred from 212(h) as a aggravated felon).

Nunez v. Holder, ___ F.3d ___, ___, 2010 WL 432417 (9th Cir. Feb. 10, 2010) ("In making this determination, we must find a realistic probability, not a theoretical possibility, that the State would apply its statute to conduct that falls outside the generic definition of moral turpitude. . . . This realistic
probability can be established by showing that, in at least one other case, the state courts in fact did apply the statute in the special (nongeneric) manner . . . . . . .

Practice Advisory on Matter of Almanza-Arenas, Non-LPR Cancellation and Moral Turpitude: Vasquez-Hernandez Does Not Hurt the Cause in the Ninth Circuit, by Kathy Brady, ILRC, http://www.ilrc.org/immigration_law/pdf/DOC%20vasquez%20hernandez%20prac...

LINKS - FEDERAL DEFENDER PUBLICATIONS
Fd.org is also a great source of info -- links to various of their publications:
http://fd.org/odstb_publications.htm

A court is not considered to have ruled on an argument that was not presented. See, e.g., RAV v. City of St. Paul, 112 S.Ct. 2538, 2545, 120 L.Ed.2d 305 (1992) ("It is of course contrary to all traditions of our jurisprudence to consider the law on [a] point conclusively resolved by broad language in cases where the issue was not presented or even envisioned"); United States v. Vroman, 975 F.2d 669, 672 (9th Cir. 1992) (precedent not controlling on issue not presented to prior panel), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 1611, 123 L.Ed.2d 172; United States v.

Jimenez Rice v. Holder, ___ F.3d ___, 2010 WL 669262 (9th Cir. Feb. 26, 2010) (California conviction of being under the influence of a controlled substance, in violation of Health & Safety Code 11550(a), that was expunged under Penal Code 1203.4(a), no longer constituted a conviction for purposes of establishing a statutory bar to showing Good Moral Character, under INA 101(f)(3), 8 U.S.C. 1101(f)(3)), following Lujan-Armendariz v. INS, 222 F.3d 728 (9th Cir. 2000) and Cardenas-Uriarte v. INS, 227 F.3d 1132 (9th Cir. 2000).

Jimenez Rice v. Holder, ___ F.3d ___, 2010 WL 669262 (9th Cir. Feb. 26, 2010) (California conviction of being under the influence of a controlled substance, in violation of Health & Safety Code 11550(a), that was expunged under Penal Code 1203.4(a), no longer constituted a conviction for purposes of establishing a statutory bar to showing Good Moral Character, under INA 101(f)(3), 8 U.S.C. 1101(f)(3)), following Lujan-Armendariz v. INS, 222 F.3d 728 (9th Cir. 2000) and Cardenas-Uriarte v. INS, 227 F.3d 1132 (9th Cir.

Romero v. Holder, 568 F.3d 1054, 1062 (9th Cir. 2009) ("the facts underlying a conviction that would have been eligible for relief under the FFOA, but was expunged under a state rehabilitative statute, cannot serve as an admission of a drug offense, statutorily barring a finding of good moral character under 8 U.S.C. 1101(f)(3).").

In Re Petition of Sousounis, 239 F. Supp. 126 (D.C. Pa 1965) (minor misrepresentations made for naturalization purposes can be explained by language difficulties and a good faith effort by the applicant to explain those discrepancies).

The California courts have plainly held that there is no conviction without a sentence. "There must [. . .] exist both prohibited or commanded acts and punishment for violation thereof; without both, there is no crime." People v. Vasilyan, 174 Cal. App. 4th 443, 450 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 2009) (citing People v. Crutcher (1968) 262 Cal.App.2d 750, 754 [68 Cal. Rptr. 904].) ("That there must be a substantive crime and a punishment for that crime in order to constitute a criminal offense has been long recognized)(citing People v. McNulty (1892) 93 Cal. 427, 437 [29 P. 61].)) (emphasis added).