United States v. Rivera, 658 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. Sept. 23, 2011) (California felony petty theft convictions under Penal Code 484(a) and 666 constituted aggravated felony theft offenses, under INA 101(a)(43)(G), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(G), for illegal re-entry sentencing purposes); declining to follow United States v. Corona"Sanchez, 291 F.3d 1201 (9th Cir. 2002) (en banc); following United States v. Rodriquez, 553 U.S.

Rosario v. Holder, 655F.3d 739 (7th Cir. Aug. 24, 2011) (federal conviction for aiding and abetting a conspiracy to import a noncitizen for the purpose of prostitution, in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1328, is not categorically an aggravated felony offense that relates to the owning, controlling, managing or supervising of a prostitution business, INA 101(a)(43)(K)(i), 8 U.S.C.

Thomas v. Attorney General of U.S., 625 F.3d 134 (3d Cir. Oct. 26, 2010) (New York misdemeanor conviction for fourth-degree criminal sale of marijuana, in violation of Penal Law 221.40, is a divisible statute [to sell, exchange, give or dispose of to another], only sale of which categorically falls within the hypothetical federal felony test of drug trafficking crimes that qualify as aggravated felonies INA 101(a)(43)(B), 8 U.S.C.

Hernandez-Cruz v. Holder, ___ F.3d ___, ___ (9th Cir. Jul. 7, 2011) (California conviction of second-degree commercial burglary, in violation of Penal Code 459, did not constitute a crime of moral turpitude under the categorical or modified categorical analysis: To hold otherwise would mean that someone who did what Hernandez- Cruz admitted doing"walking into a commercial building with the intent to commit larceny"but then changed his mind and walked out without ever committing any crime, would be guilty of a CIMT.).

18 U.S.C. 1028(a)(3) (knowingly possessing five or more identification documents with the intent unlawfully to use or transfer -- other than those issued lawfully for the use of the possessor, authentication documents or false identification documents).

Immigration counsel can argue that this offense is not a crime of moral turpitude, along the following lines.

Ganzhi v. Holder, 624 F.3d 23, 2010 WL 3465604 (2d Cir. Sept. 7, 2010) (per curiam) (New York conviction of sexual misconduct, in violation of New York Penal Law 130.20(1)[engages in sexual intercourse with another person without such person's consent], does not qualify as a sexual abuse of a minor aggravated felony under the categorical analysis, since the statute has no element involving the age of the victim).

Ganzhi v. Holder, 624 F.3d 23 (2d Cir. Sept. 7, 2010) (per curiam) (New York conviction of sexual misconduct, in violation of New York Penal Law 130.20(1), is a divisible statute, since it provides in different subsections different definitions of lack of consent, and includes offenses involving minors one day shy of 17 years of age).

Matter of Sanchez-Cornejo, 25 I. & N. Dec. 273 (BIA 2010) (Texas conviction of delivery of a simulated controlled substance, as defined by 482.001(4) of the Texas Health and Safety Code, is not an aggravated felony drug trafficking offense because federal law does not punish distribution of a non-controlled substance in place of a real controlled substance; the violation is, however, a controlled substances offense for purposes of triggering removability under INA 237(a)(2)(B)).

People v. Casas, 184 Cal.App.4th 1242 (May 25, 2010) (conviction of defendant for embezzlement is affirmed as, even if the defendant had intended to eventually return both the trade-in vehicle and the $400 down payment, his appropriation of both, for his own personal use, was significant in duration and incompatible with the owner's enjoyment or use of the property).

SENTENCE " FEDERAL " RESTITUTION
AGGRAVATED FELONY " FRAUD OFFENSES " LOSS AMOUNT " RESTITUTION
United States v. Tsosie, ___ F.3d ___, 2011 WL 1758785 (9th Cir. May 10, 2011) (vacating district courts judgment ordering restitution for expenses incurred by victim's mother in case involving abusive sexual contact in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2244(a)(1), as the award was issued in violation of the procedural and
evidentiary requirements of 18 U.S.C. 3664).