Esparza-Rodriguez v. Holder, 699 F.3d 821 (5th Cir. Oct. 18, 2012) (Texas conviction of assault, in violation of Penal Code 22.01(a)(1), properly held a crime involving moral turpitude, where there was a heightened mens rea, the use of a weapon, and violent conduct, applying the modified categorical analysis).

Esparza-Rodriguez v. Holder, 699 F.3d 821, *823, 2012 WL 4937384 (5th Cir. Oct. 18, 2012) (To rise to the level of a CIMT, the BIA has held that an assault statute must have at least two characteristics. First, the scienter element must require specific intent, or, put another way, the actus reus must be accompanied by the evil intent, depraved or vicious motive, or corrupt mind associated with moral turpitude. Id. at 241. Second, the assault statute must require a meaningful level of harm, which must be more than mere offensive touching. Id. at 241"42.

Esparza-Rodriguez v. Holder, 699 F.3d 821 (5th Cir. Oct. 18, 2012) (Texas conviction of assault, in violation of Tex. Penal Code 22.01(a)(1), where the record shows intentional mens rea, is a crime of moral turpitude for immigration purposes), following Matter of Solon, 24 I. & N. Dec. 239, 241"42 (BIA 2007).

Kimani v. Holder, 695 F.3d 666 (7th Cir. Aug. 22, 2012) (noncitizen who admits that he registered, claimed US citizenship, and voted in a presidential election is ineligible for adjustment of status).

Keathley v. Holder, 696 F.3d 644 (7th Cir. Aug. 22, 2012) (noncitizen not inadmissible for unlawful voting where the state voting official knew that she was not a citizen of the United States, but encouraged and allowed her to vote anyway).

El-Gazawy v. Holder, 690 F.3d 852 (7th Cir. Aug. 16, 2012) (noncitizen failed to establish due diligence in establishing equitable tolling for ineffective assistance of counsel when filing untimely motion to reopen).

United States v. Godat, 688 F.3d 399, *401 (8th Cir. Aug. 8, 2012) (the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment "is implicated when a sentencing court considers evidence that the defendant had no meaningful opportunity to rebut, but only when that consideration results in a sentence based on material misinformation. [T]he Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment is implicated when a district court's consideration of evidence the defendant was not given an opportunity to rebut results in the defendant being sentenced on the basis of 'misinformation of constitutional magnitude.'").

United States v. McMillan, Slip Copy, WL 3206535 (8th Cir. Aug.

Waldron v. Holder, 688 F.3d 354 (8th Cir. Aug. 6, 2012) (BIA interpretation of violent or dangerous language in 8 C.F.R. 212.7(d), requiring a showing of exceptional and extremely unusual hardship, to include a conviction under Missouri Revised Statutes 565.060, recklessly causing serious injury to another, by hitting another person on the head with a martini glass, was reasonable).

Waldron v. Holder, 688 F.3d 354 (8th Cir. Aug. 6, 2012) (The BIA has the authority to conduct de novo review of questions of law, discretion, and judgment. 8 C.F.R. 1003.1(d)(3)(ii). However, [f]acts determined by the immigration judge, including findings as to the credibility of testimony, shall be reviewed only to determine whether the findings of the immigration judge are clearly erroneous. 8 C.F.R. 1003.1(d)(3)(i).