Matter of DK, 25 I&N Dec. 761 (BIA Apr. 2012) (noncitizen refugee under INA 207, 8 U.S.C. 1157, who has not adjusted status to LPR status may be placed in removal proceedings without a prior determination by the DHS that the noncitizen is inadmissible; distinguishing Matter of Garcia-Alzugaray, 19 I&N Dec. 407 (BIA 1986); when removal proceedings are initiated against a noncitizen who has been "admitted" to the United States as a refugee, the charges of removability under INA 237, 8 U.S.C. 1227 apply).

Restrepo v. Holder, 676 F.3d 10 (1st Cir. Apr. 12, 2012)
(substantial evidence in the record established that petitioner provided false testimony under oath at his immigration hearings regarding the motives underlying his divorce, so he was statutorily precluded from obtaining cancellation of removal relief because he lacked good moral character).

Morris v. Holder, 676 F.3d 309 (2d Cir. Apr. 23, 2012) (New York conviction for second-degree assault under New York Penal Law 120.05(2) categorically constitutes a crime of violence for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 16(b), and is therefore an aggravated felony under INA 101(a)(43)(F), 8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(43)(F), finding argument that the offense is not a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. 16(a) because the crime does not require "physical force" to be inopposite because 16(b) does not require use of physical force).

Morris v. Holder, 676 F.3d 309, 317 (2d Cir. Apr. 23, 2012) (the Supreme Court's decision in Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S.Ct. 1473 (2010), did not overturn our [Second Circuit] precedent holding that the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution, U.S. Const. art. I, 9, cl. 3, is not applicable in the deportation and removal context.).

Higgins v. Holder, 677 F.3d 97 (2d Cir. Apr. 19, 2012) (Connecticut conviction for witness tampering under General Statutes 53a-151 ["if, believing that an official proceeding is pending or about to be instituted, he induces or attempts to induce a witness to testify falsely, withhold testimony, elude legal process summoning him to testify or absent himself from any official proceeding,"] categorically constituted an "offense relating to obstruction of justice" under INA 101(a)(43)(S), 8 U.S.C.

Singh v. Att'y General, 677 F.3d 503 (3d Cir. Apr. 16, 2012) (federal conviction of knowingly making a false statement under penalty of perjury in a bankruptcy proceeding in violation of 18 U.S.C. 152(3), did not trigger removal-deportation as an aggravated felony fraud conviction, because government failed to show that actual loss to the victim exceeded $10,000.00).

NOTE: This case agrees with Pierre v. Holder 588 F.3d 767 (2d Cir.

Singh v. Att'y General, 677 F.3d 503 (3d Cir. Apr. 16, 2012) (rejecting Government argument that $54,000 restitution order proved actual loss in excess of $10,000; "First, its reliance on the MVRA ["Mandatory Victims Restitution Act"] is misplaced because the record shows that the sentencing court issued restitution pursuant to an express agreement by the parties, not the MVRA. Second, the law governing restitution issued pursuant to a party agreement shows that such orders are not limited to actual losses from the offense of conviction.

Singh v. Att'y General, 677 F.3d 503, 513 (3d Cir. Apr. 16, 2012) (federal conviction of knowingly making a false statement under penalty of perjury in a bankruptcy proceeding, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 152(3), is a deceit offense, for aggravated felony purposes, where the loss attributable to the conviction is in excess of $10,000).

Singh v. Att'y General, 677 F.3d 503 (3d Cir. Apr. 16, 2012) (federal conviction of knowingly making a false statement under penalty of perjury in a bankruptcy proceeding in violation of 18 U.S.C. 152(3), could properly be charged in removal proceedings either as an aggravated felony perjury offense, under INA 101(a)(43)(S), or as an offense involving fraud or deceit under INA 101(a)(43)(M)(i)).

Singh v. Att'y General, 677 F.3d 503, 518 (3d Cir. Apr. 16, 2012) (Government must charge attempt under INA 101(a)(43)(U) in order to prevail on an "attempt" theory: "This is important because Singh has a due process right to receive notice of [t]he charges against [him] and the statutory provisions alleged to have been violated. 8 U.S.C. 1229(a); see also United States v. Torres, 383 F.3d 92, 104 (3d Cir.2004) (stating that, under the Constitution, aliens have right to receive notice of the charges against them and a fair opportunity to be heard).