In jurisdictions in which the target offense is an element of conspiracy, then that offense would be an aggravated felony if the target offense is an aggravated felony. In California, however, the target offense of a conspiracy not an element of the offense, since the jury need not unanimously agree on the identity of the target offense. The California conspiracy offense is therefore indivisible with respect to the target offense, and the modified categorical analysis does not apply.

Prabhudial v. Holder, ___ F.3d ___, 2015 WL 1061798 (2d Cir. Mar. 12, 2015) (petition for review denied, where petitioner failed to argue before the IJ that his conviction did not qualify as an aggravated felony controlled substances offense applying the categorical approach before the IJ, and the BIA may apply the doctrine of waiver to matters not raised before an IJ).
NOTE: It appears that the noncitizen completely failed to argue whether his conviction would trigger removal under the categorical analysis before the IJ, and instead sought time for a pending state case to be decided.

Florez v. Holder, 779 F.3d 207 (2d Cir. Mar. 4, 2015) (New York convictions for child endangerment under New York State Penal Law 260.10(1) [knowingly act[ing] in a manner likely to be injurious to the physical, mental or moral welfare of a child], including driving under the influence of alcohol while children were in the car, constituted child abuse, under INA 237(a)(2)(E)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(E)(i), even though no harm came to a child; the reviewing court must grant Chevron deference to the BIA), citing Matter of Velazquez"Herrera, 24 I. & N. Dec.

Florez v. Holder, 779 F.3d 207 (2d Cir. Mar. 4, 2015) (Ibarra also violates the rule that deference is owed to reasonable agency interpretations even if a court has previously construed that very statutory provision differently. See Nat'l Cable & Telecomms. Ass'n v. Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967, 982"83, 125 S.Ct. 2688, 162 L.Ed.2d 820 (2005). To illustrate: even if the U.S.

Zemene v. Clarke, ___ Va. ___, No. 140719, slip op. (Va. 2015) (immigrants are prejudiced when their criminal defense attorneys fail to provide advice that would objectively lead them to turn down a plea offer, whether or not the evidence of guilt is strong).

Zemene v. Clarke, ___ Va. ___, No. 140719, slip op. (Va. 2015) (immigrants received ineffective assistance of counsel after the client told the attorney that he was not a United States citizen, when the attorney failed to investigate the potential immigration consequences of a conviction, feiled to raise the issue in plea negotiations with the prosecutor, and failed to discuss this with the client).

Tiscareno-Garcia v. Holder, __ F.3d __ (4th Cir. Mar. 6, 2015) (noncitizen barred from showing good moral character for purposes of cancellation of removal application since noncitizen served 181 days in jail for illegal re-entry).

Gaona-Romero v. Gonzales, 497 F.3d 694, 649 (5th Cir. 2007) (after Disipio was decided, "[t]he government undertook a policy review to determine how removal cases arising in the Fifth Circuit that involve vacated convictions should be treated. The government concluded that it would not seek that removal decisions be upheld pursuant to Renteria, but rather would request remand to the BIA so that the government could take action in accord with Pickering."); citing Discipio v. Ashcroft, 417 F.3d 448 (5th Cir.

Rodriguez-Avalos v. Holder, __ F.3d __ (5th Cir. Mar. 4, 2015) (noncitizen cannot show 10 years good moral character prior to final administrative decision in non-LPR cancellation of removal application where noncitizen served 180 days or more in jail during such period).

United States v. Solano-Rosales, ___ F.3d ___, 2015 WL 1283821 (6th Cir. Mar. 23, 2015) (appeal from completed custodial sentence was not moot since its validity affected length of supervised release which was still in effect).