Valencia v. Mukasey, 548 F.3d 1261 (9th Cir. Dec. 4, 2008) (Immigration Judge has no duty to inform a respondent of his right to apply for asylum, withholding of removal or relief under the convention against torture unless the respondent specifically and affirmatively expresses a fear of return to his country of origin).

Valencia v. Mukasey, 548 F.3d 1261 (9th Cir. Dec. 4, 2008) (Immigration Judge has no duty to inform a respondent of his right to apply for asylum, withholding of removal or relief under the convention against torture unless the respondent specifically and affirmatively expresses a fear of return to his country of origin).

United States v. Hong, ___ F.3d ___, 2011 WL 3805763 (10th Cir. Aug. 30, 2011) (Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S. Ct. 1473 (2010), does not apply retroactively: Under Teague, a constitutional rule of criminal procedure applies to all cases on direct and collateral review if it is not a new rule, but rather an old rule applied to new facts. A new rule applies only to cases that still are on direct review, unless one of two exceptions applies.

Damaso-Mendoza v. Holder, 653 F.3d 1245 (10th Cir. Aug. 9, 2011) (Colorado conviction for menacing, under Colo.Rev.Stat. 18"3"206 [by any threat or physical action, he or she knowingly places or attempts to place another person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury], is categorically an aggravated felony crime of violence since it involves a threat of physical force).

Waugh v. Holder, 642 F.3d 1279, 1283 (10th Cir. Jun. 22, 2011) (DHS does not need to establish that criminal counsel gave proper immigration advice under Padilla v. Kentucky in order to establish deportability), citing United States v. Adame-Orozco, 607 F.3d 647, 653 (10th Cir. 2010) (that while an alien may have the right to pursue appellate or collateral relief for an aggravated felony conviction under various provisions of state and federal law, the government need not wait until all these avenues are exhausted before deporting him.).

Santos-Sanchez v. United States, ___ F.Supp.3d ___, 2011 WL 3793691 (S.D. TX. Aug. 24, 2011) (in Danforth v. Minnesota, 128 S. Ct. 1029 (2008), the Supreme Court has limited the Teague test to federal collateral review, and Teague does not apply to state court cases; Padilla does not create a new rule, for purposes of barring retroactive application, but applies the 1984 rule of Strickland v. Washington to a new factual context).

In Padilla v. Kentucky, the Supreme Court implied that a conviction that was vacated on a ground of legal invalidity, such as ineffective assistance of counsel, no longer existed for immigration purposes. This rejects the argument that the 1996 statutory definition of conviction, INA 101(a)(48)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(48)(A), does not expressly state that post-conviction relief eliminates a conviction for immigration purposes and therefore post-conviction relief does not do so. Padilla therefore suggests that the Fifth Circuit decisions in Discipio v. Ashcroft, 417 F.3d 448, 450 (5th Cir.

Salazar v. State, __ S.W.3d __, 2011 WL 4056283 (Tex.App. Aug. 31, 2011) (Padilla applies retroactively to cases that have become final, because it applies the 1984 Strickland rule to a new situation).

Extradition cases are listed on the following blog, which can be searched by country for unreported cases. Thanks to Linda Ramirez.
http://obtainingforeignevidence.blogspot.com/

A DHS website lists the number of noncitizens that were removed to 224 different countries from the beginning of 2008 through February 22, 2010.
http://www.dhs.gov/xoig/assets/mgmtrpts/OIG_11-81_May11.pdf