Sara Fawk, Note, Eligibility for Section 212(c) Relief from Deportation: Is it the Ground or the Offense, the Dancer or the Dance?, 32 Western New England L. Rev.

CAL POST CON " VEHICLES " MOTION TO WITHDRAW GUILTY PLEA
CAL POST CON " GROUNDS " TRIAL COURT NEED NOT HAVE INFORMED DEFENDANT THAT FEDERAL PROSECUTORS MIGHT USE HIS PLEA AGAINST HIM IN A FEDERAL PROSECUTION
People v. Aguirre, 199 Cal.App.4th 525, 131 Cal.Rptr.3d 785 (2d Dist. Sept.

False Bank Entries, 18 U.S.C. 1005
Statute is divisible and criminalizes false bank entries made with the "intent to injure or defraud." Immigration counsel might argue that guilty plea to an offense committed solely with "intent to injure" is not a crime involving moral turpitude: it cannot be fraud since "intent to injury" would then be redundant.

Salazar v. State, 2011 WL 4584938 (Tex. App. Sept. 28, 2011) (defense counsel violated Padilla duty to advise client about certain deportation consequence, and this error was prejudicial, since it would have been rational for the defendant to have taken the case to trial if he had known about the immigration disaster, requiring reversal of the conviction: preserving the clients right to remain in the United States may be more important to the client than any potential jail sentence.).

United States v. Vidal-Mendoza, ___ F.Supp.3d ___, 2011 WL 1560987 (D.Or. Apr. 25, 2011) (Oregon conviction of rape in the third degree, under Or. Rev. Statute 163.355 [sexual intercourse with another person under 16 years of age.], held not categorically an aggravated felony under INA 101(a)(43)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(A), because the Oregon statute allows for a conviction if the person has sexual intercourse with another person under 16 years of age, O.R.S. 163.355(1), which is broader than the elements of sexual abuse of a minor as defined in federal criminal law at 18 U.S.C.

Mary Holper, Deportation for a Sin: Why Moral Turpitude is Void for Vagueness, Roger Williams University School of Law (Sept. 30, 2011).
Abstract: A major problem facing noncitizen criminal defendants today is the vagueness of the term crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT) in deportation law. The Supreme Court in the 1951 case Jordan v. DeGeorge decided that a statute authorizing deportation for a CIMT was not void for vagueness because courts had long held the noncitizens offense, fraud, to be a CIMT, so he was on notice of his likely deportation.

Stephen H. Legomsky, Transporting Padilla to Deportation Proceedings: A Due Process Right to the Effective Assistance of Counsel, St. Louis University Public Law Review, 2012 (Oct. 4, 2011).
Abstract: The Supreme Courts landmark 2010 decision in Padilla v. Kentucky interpreted the Sixth Amendment as requiring criminal defense counsel to advise a non-citizen defendant concerning the deportation consequences of a guilty plea.

Matter of Guerrero, 25 I&N Dec. 631 (BIA 2011) (Rhode Island conviction for violation of G.L.R.I. 11-1-9, solicitation to commit a felony, is a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. 16(b), and triggers removal as an aggravated felony crime of violence with a sentence of one year imposed, where the charging document indicated that the noncitizen pleaded guilty to solicitation to commit assault with a deadly weapon), agreeing with United States v. Cornelio-Pena, 435
F.3d 1279, 1288 (10th Cir. 2006); Prakash v. Holder, 579 F.3d 1033,
1036-37 (9th Cir.

Matter of Bautista, 25 I&N Dec. 616, 620 (BIA 2011) (New York conviction of attempted arson, in violation of New York Penal Code 110 and 150.10, categorically constituted an aggravated felony under INA 101(a)(43)(E)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(E)(i); state conviction need not contain federal jurisdictional element to be an aggravated felony); following Matter of Vasquez-Muniz, 23 I&N Dec. 207, 212 (BIA 2002) (it must render irrelevant any purely jurisdictional element appearing in the crimes enumerated.).

Matter of Islam, 25 I&N Dec. 637 (BIA 2011) (crimes of moral turpitude did not arise out of a single scheme of criminal misconduct where respondent was convicted in two different counties of forgery and possession of stolen property based on his use of multiple stolen credit or debit cards to obtain items of value from several retail outlets on five separate occasions over the course of a day).
http://www.justice.gov/eoir/vll/intdec/vol25/3733.pdf