Khoshfahm v. Holder, 655 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. Aug. 25, 2011) (substantial evidence does not support the BIAs determination that petitioner, who lived for approximately six continuous years with his parents in Iran, abandoned his lawful permanent resident status).

United States v. Barajas-Alvarado, 655 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. Aug. 24, 2011) (defendant failed to show prejudice from the alleged procedural flaws in the proceedings that resulted in the order of removal, for purposes of collaterally attacking the deportation order as an element of illegal reentry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326(b)(2)).

Delgado v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir. Aug. 19, 2011)(No. 03-74442) (court of appeals has jurisdiction to review BIA decision that noncitizen was convicted of a particularly serious crime).

Delgado v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir. Aug. 19, 2011) (criminal offense need not be an aggravated felony to be a particularly serious crime to disqualify a noncitizen from eligibility for withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii)).

Delgado v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir. Aug. 19, 2011) (Attorney General has authority to designate offenses as particularly serious crimes through case-by-case adjudication as well as by regulation, for purposes of eligibility for political asylum).

Delgado v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir. Aug. 19, 2011) (conviction for driving under the influence could be considered particularly serious crime to disqualify a noncitizen from eligibility for withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii)).

United States v. Marguet-Pillado, 648 F.3d 1001 (9th Cir. Aug. 12, 2011) (It is well-established that, by the statute's plain terms, alienage is a core element of the 1326 offense. . . . As such, the government must prove alienage beyond a reasonable doubt, and a defendant is entitled to have the jury determine that question at trial.) (citations and quotation marks omitted); quoting United States v. Sandoval"Gonzalez, 642 F.3d 717, 722 (9th Cir.2011); see also United States v. Smith"Baltiher, 424 F.3d 913, 921 (9th Cir.2005).

United States v. Aguila-Montes de Oca, 655 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. Aug. 11, 2011) (en banc) (modified categorical analysis applies even [w]hen the crime of conviction is missing an element of the generic crime altogether.); overruling Navarro-Lopez v. Gonzales, 503 F.3d 1063, 1073 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc).

United States v. Aguila-Montes de Oca, 655 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. Aug.

Lee v. Lampert, 653 F.3d 929 (9th Cir. Aug. 2, 2011) (while believable proof of actual innocence excuses noncompliance with the statute of limitations governing 28 U.S.C. 2241 petitions, a greater showing of sufficient evidence of actual innocence is required to allow review of his constitutional claims on the merits).