United States v. Camacho-Lopez, __ F.3d __ (9th Cir. May 30, 2006) (California conviction for vehicular manslaughter, in violation of California Penal Code 191.5(a) is not an aggravated felony crime of violence, in light of Leocal, for immigration purposes; Immigration Judge therefore improperly advised noncitizen that he was not eligible for relief; conviction for illegal re-entry following removal therefore cannot be sustained.)

United States v. Piccolo, 441 F.3d 1084 (9th Cir. Apr. 3, 2006) (Escape conviction under 18 U.S.C. 751(a), which includes failure to return to a non-secured halfway house, is not necessarily a crime of violence for federal armed career offender sentencing purposes). http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0410577p.pdf

Gonzalez-Gomez v. Achim, __ F.3d __, 2006 WL 708678 (7th Cir. Mar. 22, 2006) (state felony conviction for drug possession is not an aggravated felony drug trafficking offense where the offense would only be punishable as a misdemeanor under the applicable federal statute).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/7th/052728p.pdf

"Food Stamp Fraud," despite what its name sounds like, may be neither an Aggravated Felony nor a Crime of Moral Turpitude.  In some jurisdictions, the elements of the offense do not include any of the key elements that define common law fraud; instead, the offense is basically a strict-liability regulatory offense.

Matter of KBN, 9 I. & N. Dec. 50 (BIA 1960) (decided shortly after Congress amended ina 245(a) to require "inspection and admission," rather than "admission as a bona fide nonimmigrant," the BIA held that entry by means of a fraudulently-acquired "certificate of identity" (comparable to a B-1 visa in the circumstances of the case) meets the "inspected and admitted" requirement - and then affirmed the decision to deny adjustment of status in the exercise of discretion).

Canada v. Gonzales, ___ F.3d ___, 2006 WL 1367367 (2d Cir. May 18, 2006) (Connecticut nolo contendere plea results in conviction under INA 101(a)(48)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(48)(A) for removal purposes).

Ali v. U.S. Attorney General, ___ F.3d ___, 2006 WL 709870 (7th Cir. Mar. 22, 2006) (per curiam) (Georgia conviction of two counts of child molestation under Georgia First Offender Act, O.C.G.A. 42-8- 60, et seq., which allows a first-time felony offender to be placed on probation (or be sentenced to confinement) and serve out that probation or confinement without receiving an adjudication of guilt, constituted a conviction under INA 101(a)(48)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(48)(A), for removal purposes).

United States v. Aguilar-Ortiz, __ F.3d __ (11th Cir. May 31, 2006) (Florida conviction for solicitation of delivery of drugs, in violation of Fla. Stat. 777.04(2) is not a "drug trafficking offense" for illegal re-entry sentencing purposes because the guidelines include aiding and abetting attempt, and conspiracy, but not solicitation offenses).

United States v. Bridgeforth, ___ F.3d ___, 2006 WL 786474 (9th Cir. Mar. 29, 2006) (California conviction of assault with a deadly weapon, in violation of Penal Code 245(a)(1) or (2), in which probation was terminated and the court imposed a sentence of 365 days in county jail, was a wobbler which then became a misdemeanor "for all purposes" under Penal Code 17(b)(1), and therefore did not subject the defendant to the federal career offender enhancement of U.S.S.G. 4B1.1-4B1.2, because it was a misdemeanor under California law), following United States v.

United States v. Fernandez-Cusco, __ F.3d __ (5th Cir. Apr. 20, 2006) (Minnesota felony conviction for third degree sexual conduct, under Minn. Stat. 8 609.344, is not necessarily a "forcible sex offense," and therefore not categorically a crime of violence for illegal re-entry sentencing purposes).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/5th/0540289cr0p.pdf