JUDICIAL REVIEW " RETROACTIVE APPLICATION OF BIA DECISIONS
Lugo v. Holder, 783 F.3d 119 (2nd Cir. Apr.
POST CON RELIEF " GROUNDS " INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL " CONNECTICUT " PADILLA HELD NOT RETROACTIVE
Thiersaint v. Commissioner of Correction, ___ Conn. ___ (Conn. Apr. 14, 2015) (Padilla Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010), insofar as it finds a failure to advise concerning immigration consequences of a plea to be ineffective assistance of counsel, does not apply retroactively to state convictions that became final prior to the date Padilla was decided).
DETENTION " MANDATORY DETENTION
Chavez-Alvarez v. Warden York County Prison, ___ F.3d ___, ___, 2015 WL 1567019 (3d Cir. Apr. 9, 2015) (granting habeas corpus and ordering prompt immigration bond hearing: we are convinced that, beginning sometime after the six-month timeframe considered by Demore, and certainly by the time Chavez"Alvarez had been detained for one year, the burdens to Chavez"Alvarez's liberties outweighed any justification for using presumptions to detain him without bond).
AGGRAVATED FELONY " SENTENCE
Chavez-Alvarez v. Attorney General, 783 F.3d 478, 484 (3rd Cir. Apr. 16, 2015) (government failed to show noncitizens sentence for violation of Uniform Code of Military Justice Article 125, 10 U.S.C.
RELIEF " NON-LPR CANCELLATION OF REMOVAL " CANCELLATION OF REMOVAL " PETTY OFFENSE EXCEPTION
Hernandez v. Holder, 783 F.3d 189 (4th Cir. Apr. 14, 2015) (deferring to Matter of Cortez Canales, 25 I. & N. Dec. 301, 306"08 (2010), to find noncitizen barred from non-LPR cancellation of removal under INA 240A(b)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)(1), due to being removable under INA 237(a)(2)(A)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(i), even though the noncitizens only crime fits within the petty offense exception to inadmissibility).
Note: This is the first circuit court opinion to address Matter of Cortez.
RELIEF " CANCELLATION OF REMOVAL " CONTINUOUS RESIDENCE " STOP-TIME RULE
Calix v. Lynch, 784 F.3d 1000 (5th Cir. Apr. 28, 2015) (lawful permanent resident seeking cancellation of removal who committed an offense that would make him or her inadmissible if actually seeking admission, within seven years of lawful admission, is barred from applying for cancellation of removal under the stop-time rule, INA 240A(d)(1)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1229b(d)(1)(B)).
JUDICIAL REVIEW " CHEVRON DEFERENCE " NO DEFERENCE DUE WITHOUT SPECIFIC EXPRESS HOLDING
Calix v. Lynch, 784 F.3d 1000, 1009 (5th Cir. Apr. 28, 2015) (Because we discover no holding to that effect, we find no grounds for deference under Chevron Step 2. An issue not discussed by an agency should not be seen as having implicitly been resolved in the way necessary to support the decision and the implication then be given deference.)
AGGRAVATED FELONY " MONEY LAUNDERING " LOSS TO VICTIM " PRESENTENCE REPORT
United States v. Mendoza, ___ F.3d ___, 2015 WL 1591244 (5th Cir. Apr. 9, 2015) (information in presentence investigation report was sufficient to prove conviction was money-laundering aggravated felony, under INA 101(a)(43)(D), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(D), for illegal re-entry sentencing purposes, because the $10,000 requirement for the amount of funds laundered is a circumstance-specific element of the aggravated felony definition, which could be proven by evidence outside the elements of the offense and outside the traditional record of conviction); see United States v.
POST CON RELIEF " FEDERAL " STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS " EQUITABLE TOLLING " INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL
Luna v. Kernan, ___ F.3d ___, 2015 WL 1903794 (9th Cir. Apr. 28, 2015) (counsel's professional misconduct was extraordinary circumstance that prevented petitioner from timely filing petition, as required for equitable tolling; case remanded to district court to address whether petitioner had diligently pursued his rights).
POST CON RELIEF " FEDERAL " MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
United States v. Mazarella, __ F.3d __ (9th Cir. Apr. 20, 2015) (motion for new trial granted where: (1) the government withheld exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland; (2) defendant's right to be free of unreasonable searches under the Fourth Amendment were violated; and (3) the district court erred in its denial of defendant's request for an evidentiary hearing and for discovery).
