JUDICIAL REVIEW " PETITION FOR REVIEW " COURT CANNOT AFFIRM AGENCY DECISION ON BASED ON A POSITION THE AGENCY DID NOT TAKE
Orabi v. Attorney General of the U.S., 738 F.3d 535, 539 (3d Cir. Jan. 2, 2014) (Because the BIA did not reach its decision based on this ground, we may not affirm the judgment on this ground.); see Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194, 196, 67 S.Ct. 1575, 91 L.Ed. 1995 (1947) ([A] reviewing court, in dealing with a determination or judgment which an administrative agency alone is authorized to make, must judge the propriety of such action solely by the grounds invoked by the agency.
POST CON RELIEF " REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS " RETURN TO THE UNITED STATES
Orabi v. Attorney General of the U.S., 738 F.3d 535, 528 (3d Cir. Jan. 2, 2014) (even after deportation, the Government was prepared to return noncitizen to the United States under certain circumstances pursuant to ICE regulations); see ICE Policy, 11061.1(2) (Absent extraordinary circumstances, if an alien who prevails before the U.S. Supreme Court or a U.S.
AGGRAVATED FELONY " CRIME OF VIOLENCE " RESISTING ARREST
United States v. Aparicio-Soria, 740 F.3d 152 (4th Cir. Jan. 14, 2014) (en banc) (Maryland conviction of resisting arrest, in violation of Md. Code, Crim. Law 9"408(b)(1) [[a] person may not intentionally ... resist a lawful arrest.], does not qualify categorically as a "crime of violence" within the meaning of the residual force clause of U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(A), because it does not have as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another).
CITIZENSHIP " NATURALIZATION " FRAUDULENT ADMISSION
Injeti v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 737 F.3d 311 (4th Cir. Dec. 11, 2013) (affirming district court denial of review of USCIS denial of naturalized U.S. citizenship, where noncitizen made misrepresentations on application for LPR status and submitted false evidence in another immigration proceeding).
POST-CONVICTION RELIEF " FEDERAL " VEHICLES " DIRECT APPEAL
United States v. Rodriguez-Estrada, 741 F.3d 648 (5th Cir. Jan. 31, 2014) (imposition of sentence enhancement was encompassed within waiver of appeal contained within plea agreement).
CRIMES OF MORAL TURPITUDE " ANALYIS LIMITED TO TRADITIONAL CATEGORICAL ANLYSIS
Silva-Trevino v. Holder, 742 F.3d 197, 200 (5th Cir. Jan. 30, 2014) (immigration judge cannot consider extrinsic evidence to determine whether an alien was convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude: We have long held that, in making this determination, judges may consider only the inherent nature of the crime, as defined in the statute, or, in the case of divisible statutes, the alien's record of conviction. Amouzadeh v. Winfrey, 467 F.3d 451, 455 (5th Cir.2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); U.S. ex rel. McKenzie v. Savoretti, 200 F.2d 546, 548 (1952).
JUDICIAL REVIEW " CHEVERON DEFERENCE
Silva-Trevino v. Holder, 742 F.3d 197 (5th Cir. Jan. 30, 2014) (court of appeals need not defer to Silva-Trevino method of analysis, because Congress spoke clearly on this issue); reversing Matter of Silva-Trevino, 24 I. & N. Dec. 687 (BIA Nov. 7, 2008).
CRIMES OF MORAL TURPITUDE " MENTAL STATE " KNOWLEDGE VERSUS DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE
United States v. Saucedo-Munoz, 307 F.3d 344 (5th Cir 2002) (addresses the difference in mental states between actual knowledge and deliberate indifference).
REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS " CONCESSION OF REMOVABILITY " CHALLENGE
Hanna v. Holder, 740 F.3d 379 (6th Cir. Jan. 17, 2014) (noncitizen was qualified to challenge concession of removability by counsel where a change in the law occurred, concerning how that evaluation of deportability is made, that would render removal as charged unjust).
The court explained the conditions under which a noncitizen could challenge counsels concession of removability as follows:
In a removal proceeding, petitioners are bound by the concessions of their attorneys to the IJ unless they can show ineffective assistance of counsel or some other egregious circumstances. Gill v.
JUVENILES " CONVICTION " EXISTENCE OF CONVICTION
Hanna v. Holder, 740 F.3d 379 (6th Cir. Jan. 17, 2014) (adjudication under Michigan's Holmes Youthful Trainee Act (YTA), Mich. Comp. Laws 762.11"16, is a conviction under the INA, since it is more similar to a deferred adjudication for youthful offenders than a true finding of juvenile delinquency); following Uritsky v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 728, 735 (6th Cir. 2005) (YTA adjudications are convictions under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(48)(A), because they are not analogous to determinations of juvenile delinquency under the Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act (FJDA), 18 U.S.C. 5031"42).
