Cabantac v. Holder, 693 F.3d 825 (9th Cir. Aug. 23, 2012) (We hold that where, as here, the abstract of judgment or minute order specifies that a defendant pleaded guilty to a particular count of the criminal complaint or indictment, we can consider the facts alleged in that count.).

Dormescar v. U.S. Attorney General, 690 F.3d 1258, 1269-70 (11th Cir. Aug. 15, 2012) (DHS was not barred by res judicata from seeking to remove noncitizen based on his aggravated felony conviction where noncitizen had first been charged, and found not removable under INA 212, 8 U.S.C. 1182, because the DHS could not have successfully brought the aggravated felony charge under 1227(a) until after Dormescar was deemed admitted).

Jimenez-Galicia v. U.S. Attorney General, 690 F.3d 1207 (11th Cir. Aug. 13, 2012) (court lacks jurisdiction to review the BIA's discretionary determination that Petitioner lacked good moral character).

Swarthout v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 208 Cal.App.4th 701 (Aug. 16, 2012). Trial court lacked statutory authority to issue an order for warden temporarily to transfer a prisoner to a city jail for investigative purposes, since the transfer was not sought for prisoner to make a criminal appearance or to act as a material witness in a criminal action, prisoner was not involved in an existing judicial proceeding in the trial court, and trial court's order was not a mere request.

People v Lopez, 208 Cal.App.4th 1049, 146 Cal.Rptr.3d 113 (Aug. 22, 2012) (sentence cannot be based on a fact not found true by the jury).

In re Jagana, 170 Wash.App. 33 (Div. 1, Aug. 13, 2012) (Padilla is both a significant change in the law, and thus an exception to the one-year state bar against collateral review of final judgments, and an old rule allowing retroactive application).

In Young v. Holder, 697 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. Sept. 17, 2012) (en banc), the Ninth Circuit held that Petitioner failed to exhaust the claim that his conviction was not for a violation of a law relating to a controlled substance within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(B)(i), so the court lacked jurisdiction over that claim. It also held that the evidentiary limitations articulated in Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S.

ICE has authority to detain persons during the removal period (90 days following the order of removal). INA 241(a)(1). The individual, however, is not subject to mandatory detention unless the applicant was removed on criminal grounds, under INA 212(a)(2), or security grounds, under INA 212(a)(3)(B), or 237(a)(4)(B). Under 8 C.F.R. 241.8(d), ICE officers are supposed to immediately refer those who express fear of returning to an asylum officer for a reasonable fear interview.

A person in removal proceedings is entitled to assert his/her right against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment due to any potential criminal charges arising from any admission of alienage, entry without inspection, or other factual matters alleged in the Notice to Appear. Matter of Sandoval, 17 I&N Dec. 70, 72, n.1 (BIA 1979).

Has your client carried his LPR card with him each and every moment since he became an LPR? If not, an admission to alienage on the stand would establish an essential element of an offense under 8 U.S.C. 304.

The ABA has created a website that lists collateral consequences of criminal convictions (other than immigration consequences) that exist under laws of Vermont, Minnesota, Iowa, Nevada, Texas, Wisconsin, South Carolina, New York, and federal crimes. The ABA will add consequences from other state jurisdictions. This valuable resource addresses how a conviction will impact housing, government benefits, civic participation, and a whole range of other areas. Holistic legal practitioners and criminal defense practitioners who want to follow best practices will be sure to bookmark this site.