New Morton Memo: Facilitating the Return to the U.S. of Certain Lawfully Removed Aliens
"This Directive describes existing ICE policy for facilitating the return to the United States of certain lawfully removed aliens whose PFRs are granted by a U.S. court of appeals or the U.S. Supreme Court." - ICE, Feb. 24, 2012.
http://www.ice.gov/doclib/foia/reports/parole-authority-moa-9-08.pdf.

New Documents Released: ICE Holds Voluntary
http://uncoverthetruth.org/?p=2174
The Center for Constitutional Rights, the Cardozo Immigration Justice Clinic, and the National Day Laborer Organizing Network released 22 documents obtained though Freedom of Information Act which confirm that ICE views immigration holds as voluntary.

Posts 'Prosecutorial Discretion Toolkit'
The purpose of this Toolkit is to help advocates understand various components of prosecutorial discretion - who can benefit, what is the process, and what advocates can do to assist clients both before and after the issuance of the Notice to Appear.
http://cliniclegal.org/resources/prosecutorial-discretion-toolkit

Hajro v. Barrett, 2012 WL 968087 (N.D. Cal., Mar. 21, 2012) (unpublished) (noncitizen eligible for naturalization, and was not barred as lacking good moral character for providing false testimony in connection with adjustment of status by failing to disclose service in Bosnian army or participating in Muslim religious practices; "false testimony" for purposes of good moral character must be oral statements given under oath).

The recent U.S. Supreme Court case, Vartelas v. Holder, includes language helpful in overcoming the quid quo pro argument that a noncitizen convicted by jury trial is ineligible for relief under former INA 212(c):

As the Government acknowledges, th[is] Court has not required a party challenging the application of a statute to show [he relied on prior law] in structuring his conduct. Brief for Respondent 25"26. In Landgraf, for example, the issue was the retroactivity of compensatory and punitive damages as remedies for employment discrimination. [C]oncerns of . . .

The notion of court orders nunc pro tunc is a very vague equitable doctrine. Even if counsel obtains a nunc pro tunc order in criminal court, there is no guarantee at all the immigration court will reach the criminal courts conclusion that the order or plea was entered on the backdated date c.f. United States v. Esparza, 678 F.3d 389, (5th Cir. Apr.

A person seeking to reenter to testify could apply for a nonimmigrant visa. By regulation, and in order to avoid criminal liability under INA 236, 8 U.S.C. 1326, they would need consent to reapply. A waiver of inadmissibility, under INA 212(d)(3)(A), would waive inadmissibility under INA 212(a)(9)(C).

The Supreme Court has made it clear that a person's Fifth Amendment right to remain silent is preserved at sentencing and on direct appeal. See Mitchell v. United States, 526 U.S. 314, 326, 119 S.Ct. 1307, 1314, 143 L.Ed.2d 424 (1999). The Court tangentially addressed the problems of defining when the privilege against self-incrimination ends.

State v. Gaitan, 209 N.J. 339, 37 A.3d 1089 (Feb. 28, 2012) (Supreme Courts Padilla decision is a new constitutional rule of law which is not applicable retroactively on collateral review); distinguishing State v. Nunez-Valdez, 200 N.J. 129 (2009) (defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel when he gives false or affirmatively misleading advice concerning deportation consequences of a guilty plea, and defendant shows he would not have entered the guilty plea if he had received accurate information).

State v. Nunez-Valdez, 200 N.J. 129 (2009) (defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel when he gives false or affirmatively misleading advice concerning deportation consequences of a guilty plea, and defendant shows he would not have entered the guilty plea if he had received accurate information).