Ramos v. Holder, 660 F.3d 200 (4th Cir. Oct. 27, 2011) (respondents lacked good moral character because they sent money to their children in order to assist them to enter the U.S. without inspection, which was a sufficient act to constitute alien smuggling).

Etienne v. Holder, 659 F.3d 513 (6th Cir. Oct. 5, 2011) (dismissing petition for review for lack of jurisdiction to review discretionary denial of cancellation of removal, under INA 240A, 8 U.S.C. 1229b).

Solis-Chavez v. Holder, ___ F.3d ___, 2011 WL 5041916 (7th Cir. Oct. 25, 2011) (The JRAD was valid. Although it was entered about a month outside the 30"day post-sentencing window, the state-court record confirms that the judge unequivocally indicated her intent to retain jurisdiction for the express purpose of considering a JRAD, and the recommendation was thereafter entered without opposition from immigration authorities or the state prosecutor.

Escoto-Castillo v. Napolitano, 658 F.3d 864 (8th Cir. Oct. 13, 2011)(concession in expedited removal proceeding of deportability without relief precluded later petition for review of removal order, on grounds petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies); citing 8 U.S.C. 1252(d)(1); Gonzalez v. Chertoff, 454 F.3d 813, 816 (8th Cir.2006) (failure to timely respond to expedited removal Notice precludes merits review of the unexhausted issue); Wijono v.

Escoto-Castillo v. Napolitano, 658 F.3d 864 (8th Cir. Oct. 13, 2011)(Escoto"Castillo's contention that his 2002 burglary conviction was not an aggravated felony is based entirely on a post-removal state court order, evidence that is not part of the administrative record on appeal. Congress has unambiguously provided that we may decide a petition for review only on the administrative record on which the order of removal is based.); citing INA 242(b)(4)(A); 8 U.S.C. 1252(b)(4)(A); Lukowski v. INS, 279 F.3d 644, 646 (8th Cir.

Escoto-Castillo v. Napolitano, 658 F.3d 864 (8th Cir. Oct. 13, 2011)(Escoto"Castillo's contention that his 2002 burglary conviction was not an aggravated felony is based entirely on a post-removal state court order, evidence that is not part of the administrative record on appeal. Congress has unambiguously provided that we may decide a petition for review only on the administrative record on which the order of removal is based.); citing INA 242(b)(4)(A); 8 U.S.C. 1252(b)(4)(A); Lukowski v. INS, 279 F.3d 644, 646 (8th Cir.

Lovan v. Holder, 659 F.3d 653 (8th Cir. Oct. 13, 2011) (rejecting the comparable grounds doctrine as applied to a person who would have been eligible for 212(c) relief before the crime of conviction became an aggravated felony: Had Lovan traveled to Laos and returned after his 1991 conviction but before repeal, he would have been considered excludable based on a prior conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude. See 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) (1994); In re Olquin"Rufino, 23 I. & N. Dec. 896, 897 (B.I.A.2006).

Duran Gonzales v. U.S. Dept. of Homeland Sec., 659 F.3d 930 (9th Cir. Oct. 25, 2011) (noncitizens otherwise eligible for adjustment under INA 245(i) are barred from adjustment under INA 212(a)(9)(C) if they have left the United States and returned without permission); rejecting argument this rule does not apply to applications filed prior to the Circuit's decision in Perez"Gonzalez v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 783 (9th Cir. 2004)).

United States v. Reveles, 660 F.3d 1138, No. 10-30313 (9th Cir. Oct. 24, 2011) (the non-judicial punishment (NJP) administered by the Navy for drunk driving was not criminal in nature and therefore the Government did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by prosecuting and convicting the defendant for the crime a second time"this time in the U.S.

Arsdi v. Holder, 659 F.3d 925 (9th Cir. Oct. 24, 2011) (no jurisdiction to review a specific claim where the respondent only made a general allegation that immigration judge erred in denying relief without alleging specific issues); citing INA 242(d)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1252(d)(1) (court of appeal has jurisdiction to review final removal order only if the petitioner has exhausted all administrative remedies available to the alien as of right.).