United States v. Arango, 670 F.3d 988, 2012 WL 89184 (9th Cir. Jan.12, 2012 (reversing denaturalization order where issue of fact remained as to whether noncitizen, who procured LPR status through fraudulent marriage, had entered into cooperation agreement with the INS allowing him to retain his LPR status).

United States v. Lopez-Avila, 666 F.3d 622 (9th Cir. Jan. 12, 2012) (conviction affirmed where a mistrial due to the prosecutor's misconduct in misleading the court during his cross-examination of the defendant does not provide double jeopardy relief to defendant).

United States v. Alcala-Sanchez, 666 F.;3d 571 (9th Cir. Jan. 10, 2012) (We have not been entirely consistent in our standards for reviewing a claim that the government breached a plea agreement.); citing United States v. Ellis, 641 F.3d 411, 417 (9th Cir.2011); United States v. Mondragon, 228 F.3d 978, 979"80 (9th Cir.2000). Compare, e.g., United States v. Schuman, 127 F.3d 815, 817 (9th Cir.1997) (de novo standard), with United States v. Salemo, 81 F.3d 1453, 1460 (9th Cir.1996) (clearly erroneous standard).

United States v. Noriega-Perez, ___ F.3d ___, 2012 WL 289221 (10th Cir. Feb. 1, 2012) (affirming alien-smuggling conviction where strong circumstantial evidence presented at trial sufficed for the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that non-testifying material witnesses were illegal aliens, and that sufficient specific evidence linked defendant to intentionally aiding the cross-border transportation of the named material witnesses before they were dropped off in the United States).

Contreras-Bocanegra v. Holder, ___ F.3d ___, 2012 WL 255879 (10th Cir. Jan. 30, 2012) (en banc) (8 C.F.R. 1003.2(d), prohibiting respondent from moving to reopen removal proceedings after departure from the United States, impermissibly interferes with Congress' clear intent to afford each noncitizen a statutory right to pursue a motion to reopen under 8 U.S.C. 1229a(c)(7)); overturning Roussillon"Puga v. Holder, 580 F.3d 1147, 1156 (10th Cir.2009) (upholding post-departure bar as an authorized exercise of the Attorney General's rulemaking authority).

Garces v. United States AG, 611 F.3d 1337, 1344 n.7 (11th Cir. 2010) ([N]either the Supreme Court nor this Court has specifically held that a defendant's ignorance of immigration consequences renders his guilty plea involuntary.)

Criminal defense counsel can seek to offer a factual basis in a controlled substance case that will not establish the nature of the substance sufficiently to trigger deportation as a result of involving a drug on the federal controlled substances list, by the following procedure:

(1) Draft a safe factual basis statement, for example:

At ___ p.m., on Month, Day, Year, at Address, in the county of Ventura, California, Mr. Defendant possessed [or possessed for sale] a controlled substance
prohibited under Health and Safety Code sec.

If the police reports and circumstances show that the person structured financial transactions knowing that she was aiding or colluding in trafficking, and the person cant controvert that she knew she was helping drug-trafficking, it could provide reason to believe illicit trafficking under INA 212(a)(2)(C)(i). There could be a relatively innocent reason for avoiding reporting requirements but it would have to be plausible enough to undermine the inference that she participated to knowingly assist drug trafficking. Counsel should examine the complete record of conviction.

Pacific Juvenile Defender Center, Everything You Need to Know About Adverse Results of a Juvenile Arrest, Prosecution, or Adjudication in California Collateral Consequences of Juvenile Delinquency Proceedings in California: A Handbook for Juvenile Law Practitioners (2012).

Yolanda Vazquez, Advising Noncitizen Defendants on the Immigration Consequences of Criminal Convictions, 20 Berkeley La Raza Law Journal 31, 31-48 (2010).