Lopez-Valencia v. Lynch, ___ F.3d ___ (9th Cir. Aug. 17, 2015) (California theft conviction, including any offense for which the underlying substantive offense charged was a violation of Penal Code 484, is not aggravated felony theft, since because the California definition of theft includes theft of labor, false credit reporting, and theft by false pretenses, which do not fall within the definition of aggravated felony theft).

The Immigrant Legal Resource Center has published a Practice Advisory on safe havens in California theft cases, under new Ninth Circuit law.

1. Avoid a sentence of one year or more in custody.
2. If that is not possible, try to obtain one of the following dispositions:
a. If one year or more will be imposed on a single theft count, but loss to the victim(s) does not exceed $10k, plead specifically to a fraud offense contained in Penal Code 484 (taking by deceit, embezzlement) or to theft of labor;
b. If the loss to the victim(s) exceeds $10k, but no one-year will be imposed, plead speci

Madrigal-Barcenas v. Lynch, ___ F.3d ___, 2015 WL 4716767 (9th Cir. Aug. 10, 2015) (Nevada drug paraphernalia conviction, under NRSA 453.566, constitutes a controlled substance conviction, for purposes of inadmissibility, only if the conviction involved a substance criminalized by federal drug laws); following Mellouli v. Lynch, 135 S. Ct. 2828 (2015); holding Luu-Le v. INS, 224 F.3d 911 (9th Cir. 2000) and its progeny are no longer good law.

The Immigrant Legal Resource Center and United We Dream has issued a new Practice Advisory that provides information on common issues that Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) renewal applicants face after traveling outside of the United States with advance parole. See www.ilrc.org. DACA recipients who traveled on advance parole report a variety of problems when they attempt to renew, including delayed adjudication and denials. This advisory provides information on how to prevent those problems and successfully renew DACA.

Thomas v. Lynch, ___ F.3d ___, 2015 WL 4745688 (5th Cir. Aug. 7, 2015) (petitioner's birth on military base did not render him a birthright citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment).

Ex Parte Torres, ___ Tex. Ct. Crim. App. ___, ___, 2014 WL 1168929 (Tex. Ct. App. March 21, 2014) (Merely stating that removal proceedings could ensue after a guilty plea to an aggravated felony or drug offense is ineffective in mandatory removal cases; counsel must clearly state that pleading to the offense will result in removal.).

Miranda-Romero v. Lynch, ___ F.3d ___, 2015 WL 4746166 (8th Cir. Aug. 12, 2015) (California conviction of forgery, under Penal Code 472, categorically constitutes crime of moral turpitude, since entire statute requires intent to defraud).

Note: This decision is erroneous. The plain language of the statute includes three groups of offenses, of which only the first expressly requires intent to defraud.

Rodriguez-Vega v. Lynch, ___ F.3d ___ (9th Cir. Aug. 14, 2015) (where the immigration statute or controlling case law expressly identifies the crime of conviction as a ground for removal, the deportation consequence is truly clear.; courts immigration warning and plea language cannot cure attorney error; prejudice satisfied by showing that but for counsels error she would negotiated a different plea, or alternatively, gone to trial).

Morales v. Gonzales, 472 F.3d 689 (9th Cir. Jan. 3, 2007) (agreement to allow state appellate court to assume the truth of the States evidence for the purpose of defendants challenge to the sufficiently of the evidence on appeal is not an admission of facts sufficient to determine the nature of a conviction for immigration purposes, since [N]o factual findings are actually made, and no admissions are entered into by the defendant. Instead, for the sole purpose of determining the sufficiency of the evidence, the evidence is presumed true. . . .

United States v. Fazio, 795 F.3d 421 (3d Cir. Aug. 4, 2015) (defendant could not establish ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to warn of immigration consequences where warning of potential of immigration consequences by District Court in plea colloquy and standard language in plea agreement cured any possible error counsel may have made).

Note: The district court asked the defendant Do you understand that no one, including your attorney or me or the government's attorney can predict to a certainty the effect of your conviction on your immigration status?