Prus v. Holder, 660 F.3d 144 (2d Cir. Sept. 28, 2011) (per curiam) (prostitution in INA 101(a)(43)(K)(i) refers to promiscuous sexual intercourse for hire.); deferring to Matter of Gonzales"Zoquiapan, 24 I & N Dec. 549, 553 (BIA 2008) (prostitution in INA 212(a)(2)(D), which relates to the inadmissibility of aliens entering the United States to engage in prostitution, means promiscuous sexual intercourse for hire. 22 C.F.R. 40.24(b).).

Chen v. Holder, 658 F.3d 246 (2d Cir. Sept. 23, 2011) (claim that respondent's husband was unavailable to testify in support of his wife's asylum claim due to fear of apprehension does not establish that husband was not available to testify to corroborate asylum claim; in this instance, husband's testimony, if helpful in allow spouse to obtain asylee status, would also have allowed the husband to obtain status as a derivative).

Cheruku v. Attorney General of U.S., ___ F.3d ___, 2011 WL 4392429 (3d Cir. Sept. 22, 2011) (noncitizen barred from adjustment of status under INA 245(i) where the noncitizen is subject to inadmissibilty under INA 212(a)(9)(C)).

Doe v. Attorney General, 659 F.3d 266 (3d Cir. Sept. 8, 2011) (federal conviction of aiding and abetting a wire fraud scheme, under 18 U.S.C. 2 and 1343, that cost its victims more than $120,000, constituted an aggravated felony fraud offense, under INA 101(a)(43)(M)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(M)(i)).

Doe v. Attorney General, 659 F.3d 266 (3d Cir. Sept. 8, 2011) (in evaluating the amount of loss to the victim in excess of $10,000, necessary to establish an aggravated felony fraud offense, under INA 101(a)(43)(M)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(M)(i), a court must limit itself to consideration of the loss tethered to the alien's specific offense of conviction.); see Alaka v. Att'y Gen., 456 F.3d 88, 106 (3d Cir.2006) (it was legal error for the IJ to consider the amount of intended loss for all of the charges rather than the single count for which she was convicted.); Nijhawan v.

Doe v. Attorney General, 659 F.3d 266 (3d Cir. Sept. 8, 2011) (Rodov pled guilty not to a single fraudulent transaction but to aiding and abetting the whole of a large-scale criminal endeavor, so the record established the loss from the offense of conviction was in excess of $10,000, sufficient to establish that the offense was an aggravated felony fraud offense under INA 101(a)(43)(M)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(M)(i)); see Khalayleh v. INS, 287 F.3d 978, 980 (10th Cir. 2002) (Count Two of the indictment did not allege a discrete fraud involving only the $9,308 check.

Doe v. Attorney General, 659 F.3d 266 (3d Cir. Sept. 8, 2011) (a lawful permanent resident entering the United States is presumed not to be seeking admission under INA 101(a)(13)(C)(v), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(13)(C)(v), unless the government establishes at the time of the entry probable cause to believe that the LPR has committed a listed offense: Where a warrant has issued for the alien's arrest on suspicion of the commission of one of the enumerated crimes, probable cause will be presumed.

Diop v. DHS, 656 F.3d 221 (3d Cir. Sept. 1, 2011) (the mandatory detention provision at INA 236(c), 8 U.S.C. 1226(c), implicitly authorizes detention for a reasonable amount of time, after which the authorities must make an individualized inquiry into whether detention is still necessary to fulfill the statute's purposes of ensuring that an alien attends removal proceedings and that his release will not pose a danger to the community.).

Shewchun v. Holder, 658 F.3d 557 (6th Cir. Sept. 8, 2011) (former ICE Chief Counsel only needs to recuse herself where she took part in the particular case before her, based on intepretation of 28 U.S.C. 455(a), requiring recusal by federal judges in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.); see Petrov v. Gonzales, 464 F.3d 800, 803 (7th Cir. 2006).

Shewchun v. Holder, 658 F.3d 557 (6th Cir. Sept. 8, 2011) (noncitizen must get agreement from DHS that noncitizen is primafacie eligible for naturalization in order to ask immigration judge to terminate removal proceedings in order to apply for naturalization; although DHS may not adjudicate naturalization application of noncitizen in removal proceedings, DHS may determine prima facie eligibility without making a final determination on the application itself), following Matter of Hidalgo, 24 I. & N. Dec. 103 (BIA 2007); Barnes v. Holder, 625 F.3d 801, 807 (4th Cir. 2010).