Zegrean v. U.S. Attorney General, 602 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. Apr. 13, 2010) (noncitizen cannot establish prima facie eligibility for naturalization, under 8 C.F.R. 1239.2(f), when removal proceedings began before the naturalization application was filed), citing Perriello v. Napolitano, 579 F.3d 135 (2d Cir. 2009).

Benaouicha v. Holder, 600 F.3d 795 (7th Cir. Apr. 6, 2010) (noncitizen convicted of a crime of moral turpitude is ineligible for VAWA cancellation, even if good moral character can be shown).

Matter of Alania-Martin, 25 I. & N. Dec. 231 (BIA Apr. 30, 2010) (noncitizens otherwise eligible to adjust status under INA 245(i) are not subject to the unauthorized employment restrictions of INA 245(c) and the exception in INA 245(k) that apply to applications for adjustment of status under section 245(a)).

Ledezma-Garcia v. Holder, 599 F.3d 1055 (9th Cir. Mar. 22, 2010) (although the "aggravated felony" definition applies regardless of the date of conviction, an aggravated felony conviction occurring prior to November 18, 1988 does not trigger deportability under INA 237(a)(2)(A)(iii), 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii)), overruling Matter of Lettman, 22 I. & N. Dec. 365 (BIA 1998) (en banc).

(1) During Removal Proceedings. The standard to qualify for voluntary departure prior to the completion of removal proceedings is less stringent than that for qualifying at the conclusion of proceedings.

Ledezma-Garcia v. Holder, 599 F.3d 1055 (9th Cir. Mar. 22, 2010) (although the "aggravated felony" definition applies regardless of the date of conviction, an aggravated felony conviction occurring prior to November 18, 1988 does not trigger deportability under INA 237(a)(2)(A)(iii), 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii)), overruling Matter of Lettman, 22 I. & N. Dec. 365 (BIA 1998) (en banc).

In 1996, Congress enacted restrictions against judicial review of final removal orders for noncitizens "removable" for criminal grounds under INA 237(a)(2), including aggravated felony convictions.

The presumption of the official performance of duty may be of use in proving that there is a realistic probability of prosecution, where the plain language of the statute clearly covers non-deportable conduct. The police would presumably perform their duty if a defendant violates the plain terms of the statute. The prosecution would presumably perform its duty to prosecute under those circumstances.

Casas-Castrillon v. Department of Homeland Security, 535 F.3d 942, 948 (9th Cir. 2008) (alien detained in immigration custody, whose order of removal the Board has affirmed, is entitled to seek a bond hearing under INA 236(a), 8 U.S.C. 1226(a), until he or she enters the removal period after the Ninth Circuit has rejected his or her final petition for review, and the time to seek such review has expired); see Prieto-Romero v. Clark, 534 F.3d 1053. 1060 (9th Cir. 2008).

Lanuza v. Holder, 597 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. Mar. 5, 2010) ("The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), Pub.L. No. 104-208, 309(c)(5)(C)(ii), 110 Stat. 3009 (1996), expressly precludes us from reviewing the BIA's determination of eligibility for NACARA 203 relief.").

Lee v. Holder, 599 F.3d 973 (9th Cir. Mar. 25, 2010) (Immigration Judge lacks jurisdiction to consider application for U-Visa interim relief).

Vila v. U.S. Attorney General, 598 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir. Mar. 10, 2010) (period during which noncitizen who entered without inspection was in United States, pursuant to approved I-140 visa and pending adjustment of status petition, could not be counted in determining the seven years lawful continuous residence prior to the initiation of removal proceedings).