JUDICIAL REVIEW - HABEAS - RIPENESS
Edwards v. INS, ___ F.3d ___, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 26335 (2d Cir. December 17, 2004) (Unpublished) (petitioner's claims are ripe for judicial review, even though she will not become eligible for release from criminal custody until 2006, since the determination of her claims may take that long in any event and may be necessary to proceed now to avert possibility of mandatory immigration detention pending litigation of the immigration claims after the criminal custody release date), distinguishing Simmonds v. INS, 326 F.3d 351 (2d Cir.
JUDICIAL REVIEW - AGGRAVATED FELONY BAR TO JURISDICTION APPLIES ONLY WHEN IMMIGRATION DECISION RELIED UPON FACT OF AGGRAVATED FELONY CONVICTION
Unuakhaulu v. Ashcroft, 392 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. Dec. 20, 2004) (where IJ did not rely upon noncitizens aggravated felony conviction in denying applications for withholding of removal and convection against torture relief, jurisdictional bar to review for noncitizens convicted of aggravated felonies, under INA 242(a)(2)(C); 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(C), does not apply).
JUDICIAL REVIEW - BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS - LACK OF JURISDICTION TO ISSUE DEPORTATION ORDER - MUST REMAND TO IMMIGRATION JUDGE TO DO SO
Molina-Camacho v. Ashcroft, 393 F.3d 937 (9th Cir. Dec. 28, 2004) (BIA acted without jurisdiction to issue a deportation order, instead of remanding the case to the Immigration Judge for issuance of a deportation order).
CRIMES OF MORAL TURPITUDE - JUDICIAL REVIEW LIMITATIONS - WHETHER BIAS CMT DECISION IS ENTITLED TO CHEVRON DEFERENCE - STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
Mei v. Ashcroft, 393 F.3d 737 (7th Cir. Dec. 29, 2004) ("The courts that have addressed the question (our court has not) agree that the Boards interpretation of the meaning of "crime involving moral turpitude" is entitled to Chevron deference; see INS v. Aguirre-Aguirre, 526 U.S. 415, 425, 143 L. Ed.
RELIEF - JUDICIAL REVIEW LIMITATION - CS CONVICTION
Yanez-Garcia v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 280 (7th Cir. Nov. 2, 2004) (dismissing for lack of jurisdiction a petition for review seeking to reverse Board of Immigration Appeals' decision that single possession offense can qualify as aggravated felony drug trafficking crime).
JUDICIAL REVIEW - PETITION FOR REVIEW - CASE PRESENTING BOTH REVIEWABLE AND UNREVIEWABLE GROUNDS
Lanza v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 917 (9th Cir. Nov. 22, 2004) (where petitioner presents to the BIA grounds that are both reviewable and unreviewable in federal court, and the BIA's subsequent affirmance without opinion prevents the Court of Appeal from discerning the reasons for the BIA 's decision, Due Process requires remand to the BIA for clarification of the grounds for its decision).
JUDICIAL REVIEW - PETITION FOR REVIEW - NO MOOTNESS DESPITE DEPORTATION
Alwan v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 507 (5th Cir. Oct. 18, 2004) (while deportation removes primary personal stake in case, collateral consequence that noncitizen would be permanently barred from reentry sufficient to avoid mootness).
CRIME OF MORAL TURPITUDE - IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES - JURISDICTION RESTRICTION
Olatunji v. Ashcroft, 387 F.3d 383 (4th Cir. Oct. 19, 2004) (conviction of one crime of moral turpitude precludes court of appeals from exercising petition for review jurisdiction over final removal order).
JUDICIAL REVIEW - LEGALIZATION CASES
Guzman-Andrade v. Gonzales, ___ F.3d ___ (9th Cir. May 19, 2005) (noncitizens who would have been subject to grounds of deportability prior to IIRAIRA, but are now subject to grounds of inadmissibility retain right of judicial review legalization claims).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0370765p.pdf
JUDICIAL REVIEW - PETITION FOR REVIEW -- JURISDICTION LIMITATION - STATUTE DOES NOT BAR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF NONDISCRETIONARY OR PURELY LEGAL ISSUES OF ELIGIBILITY FOR CANCELLATION OF REMOVAL
Sepulveda v. Gonzales, ___ F.3d ___ (2d Cir. May 4, 2005) (jurisdiction limitation, 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B), does not bar judicial review of nondiscretionary, or purely legal, decisions regarding eligibility for relief for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. 1229b or for adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C. 1255(i), because they were based on nondiscretionary grounds).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/2nd/0340643p.pdf
