Matter of Islam, 25 I&N Dec. 637, 639 (BIA 2011) (New York convictions of criminal possession of stolen property (involving a credit or debit card), under N.Y. Penal 165.45(2), and forgery in the third degree, under N.Y. Penal 170.05, constituted multiple convictions of crimes of moral turpitude, for purposes of deportation under INA 237(a)(2)(A)(ii), 8 U.S.C.

Matter of Guerrero, 25 I&N Dec. 631, 635 (BIA 2011) (Rhode Island conviction for criminal solicitation, in violation of R.I. Gen. L. 11-1-9, was a crime of violence where the crime solicited was assault: the State must show that the accused intended that the solicited crime, in this case assault with a dangerous weapon, would be committed. . . . [A]lthough the respondents solicitation offense can be committed without the use of force and before any actual force is used, this does not diminish the substantial risk of violence that solicitation of . . .

Matter of Guerrero, 25 I&N Dec. 631, 635 (BIA 2011) (Rhode Island conviction for criminal solicitation, in violation of R.I. Gen. L. 11-1-9, was a crime of violence where the crime solicited was assault: the State must show that the accused intended that the solicited crime, in this case assault with a dangerous weapon, would be committed. . . . [A]lthough the respondents solicitation offense can be committed without the use of force and before any actual force is used, this does not diminish the substantial risk of violence that solicitation of . . .

Matter of Velasquez, 25 I&N Dec. 680 (BIA 2012) (to be admissible as evidence of a conviction, an electronic disposition must comply with the authentication requirements of 8 CFR 1003.41(d)).

Cuevas v. Grondolsky, ___ F.3d ___, 2012 WL 265842 (1st Cir. Jan. 31, 2012) (habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. 2241 challenging federal drug conspiracy conviction was denied, since relief available on motion to vacate sentence extended to alleged violations of extradition treaty, precluding successive habeas petition alleging violation of extradition treaty as attempt to circumvent limits on multiple motions to vacate sentences).

Totimeh v. Attorney General, 666 F.3d 109 (3d Cir. Jan. 12, 2012) (Minnesota conviction of failure to register as a sex offender, in violation of Minn. Stat. 243.166.5, defined the offense as knowingly violat[ing] any of [the statutes] provisions or intentionally provid[ing] false information, is not a crime of moral turpitude, since it is a regulatory offense designed to assist law enforcement, and does not regulate a crime that of itself is inherently vile or intentionally malicious.); following Efagene v. Holder, 642 F.3d 918 (10th Cir.

Chehazeh v. Attorney General, 666 F.3d 118 (3d Cir. Jan. 11, 2012) (district courts have jurisdiction under the APA, 28 U.S.C. 1331, to review a BIA grant [but not denial] and a sua sponte decision to reopen a removal proceeding; "On general principles, then, the District Court had jurisdiction over Chehazeh's claims under 1331 and could have reviewed the BIA's decision to reopen Chehazeh's removal proceedings pursuant to the APA if (1) the BIA's action was not 'committed to agency discretion by law,' 5 U.S.C. 701(a)(2); (2) no statute precluded review, 5 U.S.C.

Prudencio v. Holder, 669 F.3d 472 (4th Cir. Jan. 30, 2012) (the Attorney Generals method to determine whether a conviction is a crime of moral turpitude, set forth in Matter of Silva-Trevino, 24 I&N Dec. 687 (A.G. 2008), is not an authorized exercise of his discretion under Chevron).

Prudencio v. Holder, 669 F.3d 472 (4th Cir. Jan. 30, 2012) (Virginia misdemeanor conviction of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, in violation of Virginia Code 18.2-371, did not categorically constitute a crime involving moral turpitude applying the modified categorical approach).

Turkson v. Holder, 667 F.3d 523 (4th Cir. Jan. 26, 2012) (granting petition for review, and vacating removal order, where BIA erroneously reviewed the IJ's factual findings under the de novo standard of review instead of under the clearly erroneous standard required by its governing regulations, in considering a claim for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture); referring to 8 C.F.R. 1003.1(d)(i) (The Board will not engage in de novo review of findings of fact determined by an immigration judge.