Delgado-Sobalvarro v. Attorney General of U.S., 625 F.3d 782 (3d Cir. Nov. 2, 2010) (petitioners were not eligible to adjust status under INA 245 on the basis of their INA 236 conditional parole, since conditional parole does not constitute parole into the United States for the purposes of adjustment of status under INA 245).

Barnes v. Holder, 625 F.3d 801 (4th Cir. Nov. 10, 2010) (removal proceedings may only be terminated pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 1239.2(f) where the DHS has presented an affirmative communication attesting to the alien's prima facie eligibility for naturalization).

United States v. Marquez, 626 F.3d 214 (5th Cir. Nov. 10, 2010) (New Mexico violation of NMSA 30-22-16, possession of a deadly weapon by a prisoner, is a crime of violence for purposes of the armed career criminal act, since the offense involves a serious potential risk of injury to another).

United States v. Cruz-Rodriguez, 625 F.3d 274, 276 (5th Cir. Nov. 2, 2010) (per curiam) (California conviction of willful infliction of corporal injury, in violation of Penal Code 273.5(a), constituted a crime of violence under U.S.S.G.

United States v. Cruz-Rodriguez, 625 F.3d 274, 277 (5th Cir. Nov. 2, 2010) (per curiam) (California conviction of criminal threats, in violation of Penal Code 422, did not constitute a crime of violence under U.S.S.G.

De la Paz v. Holder, 640 F.3d 650 (6th Cir. Nov. 8, 2010) (circuit court has jurisdiction to review reinstatement order within 30 days of issuance, under 8 U.S.C. 1252(b)).

De la Paz v. Holder, 640 F.3d 650, 654 (6th Cir. Nov. 8, 2010) ("[T[he government agrees, the 30-day limitations period set forth in 1252(b)(1) applies to petitions for review of reinstatement orders just as it does to removal orders. The government then notes that DHS entered its reinstatement order on July 10, 2008, and that Villegas did not file her petition until March 5, 2009 " which was more than 30 days after the order was entered. Thus, the government argues, we lack jurisdiction to review the order.

Mata-Guerrero v. Holder, 627 F.3d 256 (7th Cir. Nov. 24, 2010) (case remanded for the BIA to apply Matter of Silva-Trevino to determine whether petitioner's conviction for failure to register as a sex offender, under Wisconsin Statute 301.45(2)(a), was a crime of moral turpitude).

NOTE: The court rejected the application of Matter of Tobar-Lobo, 24 I. & N. Dec.

Champion v. Holder, 626 F.3d 952 (7th Cir. Nov. 22, 2010) (court has jurisdiction to review whether the Immigration Judge and BIA took sufficient notice of facts relevant in determining hardship for purposes of non-LPR cancellation of removal).

Champion v. Holder, 626 F.3d 952 (7th Cir. Nov. 22, 2010) (court has jurisdiction to review whether the Immigration Judge and BIA took sufficient notice of facts relevant in determining hardship for purposes of non-LPR cancellation of removal).