Ettienne v. Holder, 659 F.3d 513, 518 (6th Cir. Oct. 5, 2011) (court lacks jurisdiction to review weight attached by Immigration Judge to hardship evidence relating to cancellation of removal; this court lacks jurisdiction over claims that can be evaluated only by engaging in head-to-head comparisons between the facts of the petitioner's case and those of precedential decisions).

Gourche v. Holder, ___ F.3d ___, 2011 WL 5443657 (7th Cir. Nov. 9, 2011) (discretionary waiver of deportability, under INA 237(a)(1)(H), 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(1)(H), for fraudulent conduct is inapplicable to a noncitizen deportable for a visa fraud conviction and therefore deportable under INA 237(a)(3)(B)(iii), 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(3)(B)(iii)).

Gourche v. Holder, ___ F.3d ___, 2011 WL 5443657 (7th Cir. Nov. 9, 2011) (federal conviction of conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C. 1546(a), fraud in immigration documents, categorically triggers deportation under INA 237(a)(3)(B)(iii), 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(3)(B)(iii); the parenthetical language (relating to fraud and misuse of visas, permits, and other entry documents) is merely descriptive).

NOTE: The court stated that, In ascertaining the meaning of a statute, we look to the language and the structure of the statutory provisions. Burma v.

United States v. Leal-Felix, __ F.3d __, 2011 WL 5966202 (9th Cir. Nov. 30, 2011) (a citation for a traffic violation is not an arrest for purposes of the illegal re-entry sentencing guidelines, at U.S.S.G. 4A1.2(a)(2); For the purpose of the Sentencing Guidelines, an arrest is a formal arrest. A formal arrest may be indicated by informing the suspect that he is under arrest, transporting the suspect to the police station, and/or booking the suspect into jail. (footnotes omitted)).

Lezama-Garcia v. Holder, ___ F.3d ___, 2011 WL 5966204 (9th Cir. Nov. 30, 2011) (brief unplanned departure from the United States did not amount to abandonment of pending application for adjustment of status under 202 of the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act); see 8 C.F.R. 245.13(k)(1), Rosenberg v. Fleuti, 374 U.S. 449, 462 (1963).

Perez-Mejia v. Holder, ___ F.3d ___, ___, 2011 WL 5865888 (9th Cir. Nov. 23, 2011), amending 641 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir. Apr. 21, 2011).

In Perez-Mejia v. Holder, the Ninth Circuit explained the elements of a successful claim of estoppel against the government:

It is well settled ... that the government may not be estopped on the same terms as a private litigant. Watkins, 875 F.2d at 706.

Perez-Mejia v. Holder, ___ F.3d ___, 2011 WL 5865888 (9th Cir. Nov. 23, 2011), amending 641 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir. Apr. 21, 2011) (California conviction of possessing a narcotic for sale, under Health and Safety Code 11351, constituted a controlled substances conviction, for purposes of removal, even though California offense was overbroad in including at least one substance, acetylfentanyl, that was not on the federal controlled substances list, where respondent conceded removability at pleading stage of removal proceeding); but see S"Yong v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1028, 1034 (9th Cir.

Perez-Mejia v. Holder, ___ F.3d ___, ___, 2011 WL 5865888 (9th Cir. Nov. 23, 2011), amending 641 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir. Apr. 21, 2011) (The government is not estopped by its error in granting Perez"Mejia LPR status from correcting its mistake and ordering his removal.).

Perez-Mejia v. Holder, ___ F.3d ___, ___, 2011 WL 5865888 (9th Cir. Nov. 23, 2011), amending 641 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir. Apr. 21, 2011) (Perez"Mejia is correct that we may set aside a determination by the IJ that rests on an alien's erroneous concession, at least in some circumstances.); citing Mandujano"Real v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 585, 588 (9th Cir.

Perez-Mejia v. Holder, ___ F.3d ___, ___, 2011 WL 5865888 (9th Cir. Nov. 23, 2011), amending 641 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir. Apr. 21, 2011) (By admitting at the pleading stage that he was convicted of possessing cocaine for sale and conceding that he was, therefore, removable, Perez"Mejia relieved the government of its burden of offering further evidence to prove that he was removable), adopting reasoning of Hoodho v. Holder, 558 F.3d 184 (2d Cir.