Gonzalez v. Thaler, ___ U.S. ___, 2012 WL 43513 (Jan.10, 2012) (petition for habeas relief was time-barred under AEDPA, because the 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(3) one-year statute of limitations is a mandatory but nonjurisdictional rule and, for purposes of 28 U.S.C. 2244(d)(1)(A), judgment becomes final on the date that the time for seeking such review expires).

Klapprott v. United States, 335 U.S. 601 (1949) (Furthermore, because of the grave consequences incident to denaturalization proceedings we have held that a burden rests on the Government to prove its charges in such cases by clear, unequivocal and convincing evidence which does not leave the issue in doubt. Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U.S. 118, 158, 1352. This burden is substantially identical with that required in criminal cases-proof beyond a reasonable doubt.).

Matter of RAM, 25 I&N Dec. 657 (BIA 2012) (In determining, on a case by case basis, whether an offense is a particularly serious crime, see Delgado v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1095, 1106-07 (9th Cir. 2011), we examine the nature of the conviction, the type of sentence imposed, and the circumstances and underlying facts of the conviction. Matter of N-A-M-, 24 I&N Dec. 336, 342 (BIA 2007), affd, N-A-M- v. Holder, 587 F.3d 1052 (10th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 898 (2011); see also Matter of L-S-, 22 I&N Dec.

Matter of RAM, 25 I&N Dec. 657 (BIA 2012) (California conviction for possession of child pornography, under Penal Code 311.11(a) [knowingly possess or control any image or film that depicts a person under the age of 18 years engaging in or simulating sexual conduct] is an aggravated felony, since it is an offense described in 18 U.S.C. 2252, and therefore bars political asylum under INA 208(b)(2)(A)(ii), (B)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1158(b)(2)(A)(ii), (B)(i) (2006)); see 18 U.S.C. 2252(a)(4) (2006) (punishing the knowing possession of child pornography); see also Armijo v. Mukasey, 266 F.

Matter of Singh, 25 I. & N. Dec. 670 (BIA 2012) (California conviction for stalking, in violation of Penal Code 646.9(b), is an aggravated felony crime of violence, under 18 U.S.C. 16(b), for immigration purposes because when
a course of conduct that is both serious and continuing in nature is coupled
with a credible threat to another persons safety, there is a substantial risk that
physical force may be used.), following Matter of Malta, 23 I&N Dec. 656 (BIA 2004), rev'd Malta-Espinoza v. Gonzales, 478 F.3d 1080, 1083-84 (9th Cir. 2007).

Matter of Singh, 25 I. & N. Dec. 670 (BIA 2012) (refusing to follow Ninth Circuit law regarding a California criminal offense where the removal case arose in the Fourth Circuit).

Matter of Singh, 25 I. & N. Dec. 670 (BIA 2012) (an offense that may be committed recklessly may still be considered an aggravated felony crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. 16(b)).

Matter of Avetisyan, 25 I&N Dec. 688 (BIA 2012) (Immigration Judges and the Board may administratively close removal proceedings, even if a party opposes, if it is otherwise appropriate under the circumstances), overruling Matter of Gutierrez, 21 I&N Dec. 479 (BIA 1996), overruled.

Matter of Avetisyan, 25 I&N Dec. 688 (BIA 2012) (to determine whether to administratively close proceedings, an Immigration Judge should weigh all relevant factors, including: (1) the reason closure is sought; (2) the basis of any opposition; (3) the likelihood respondent will succeed in any action he or she is pursuing outside of removal proceedings; (4) the anticipated duration of the closure; (5) the responsibility of either party, if any, in contributing to any delay; and (6) the potential ultimate outcome of removal proceedings).

Matter of Islam, 25 I&N Dec. 637, 639 (BIA 2011) (because the term single scheme of criminal misconduct, in INA 237(a)(2)(A)(ii), 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii), constitutes an ambiguous phrase, federal courts owe a Chevron duty of deference to the BIA interpretation of that phrase); discussing Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) and Natl Cable & Telecomms. Assn v. Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967 (2005); disapproving Nason v. INS, 394 F.2d 223 (2d Cir. 1968) (adopting a more expansive interpretation of single scheme of criminal misconduct).