Flores v. Holder, ___ F.3d ___, ___, 2015 WL 795212 (2d Cir. Feb. 26, 2015) (BIA
erred by consulting the record of conviction to determine that Flores's underlying conduct"the touching of his hand to the genital area of th[e] victim"satisfied the generic definition of sexual abuse of a minor under 18 U.S.C. 3509(a). . . . The agency was instead required to consider whether the minimum conduct necessary to violate N.Y. Penal Law 130.65(3) was encompassed within 18 U.S.C. 3509(a)'s definition of sexual abuse.); see Ming Lam Sui v. INS, 250 F.3d 105, 117"18 (2d Cir.

Pan v. Holder, ___ F.3d ___, 2015 WL 304199 (2d Cir. Jan. 26, 2015) (granting petition for review of Immigration Judges denial of applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief pursuant to the Convention Against Torture, where the IJ and BIA failed to adequately explain why the significant violence petitioner suffered was insufficiently egregious to constitute persecution; and failed to consider record evidence, which tended to prove that the Kyrgyz police and unwilling or unable to protect petitioner from private persecutors).

Nezirovic v. Holt, ___ F.3d ___, 2015 WL 777540 (4th Cir. Feb. 25, 2015) (affirming extradition of alien to Bosnia and Herzegovina for alleged war crimes against civilians during Bosnian War, and denying habeas corpus, because war crimes allegedly committed by alien did not fall within scope of political offense exception to extradition).

Eddie E. v. Superior Court, ___ Cal.App.4th ___, ___ Cal.Rptr.3d ___, 2015 WL 545984 (4th Dist. Feb. 11, 2015) (court of appeals ordered juvenile court to make favorable findings under 8 U.S.C.

United States v. Garcia-Perez, ___ F.3d ___, 2015 WL 753759 (5th Cir. Feb. 23, 2015) (Florida conviction of manslaughter, in violation of Florida Statute 782.07, did not qualify as a crime of violence under United States Sentencing Guideline 2L1.2(b)(1)(A), because Florida manslaughter conviction does not require proof of force, and my be committed with negligent intent).

Pola v. United States, ___ F.3d ___, 2015 WL 690312 (6th Cir. Feb. 19, 2015) (A petitioner who has served the full term of his sentence still satisfies the in-custody requirement of 2255 provided he filed the motion while incarcerated and shows that he is suffering, and will continue to suffer, serious disabilities"collateral consequences"as a result of the conviction. Carafas v. LaValleee, 391 U.S. 234, 238"39, 88 S.Ct. 1556, 20 L.Ed.2d 554 (1968).).

Pola v. United States, ___ F.3d ___, ___, 2015 WL 690312 (6th Cir. Feb. 19, 2015) (When a petitioner challenges the constitutionality of his conviction, [footnote omitted] we presume he will experience lasting collateral consequences. See Spencer, 523 U.S. at 12 (In the context of criminal conviction, the presumption of significant collateral consequences is likely to comport with reality.); Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 55"57, 88 S.Ct.

Pola v. United States, ___ F.3d ___, 2015 WL 690312 (6th Cir. Feb. 19, 2015) (petitioner has standing to pursue a motion under 28 USC 2255, because he continues to suffer from an injury in fact because we may presume collateral consequences, he was removed from the United States, and he is now inadmissible to reenter the United States).

Pola v. United States, ___ F.3d ___, 2015 WL 690312 (6th Cir. Feb. 19, 2015) (fact that court characterizes petitioners affidavit as self-serving " standing alone " is an insufficient basis on which to sustain an adverse credibility determination).

The court stated:

But an affidavit is not incredible just because the asserted facts favor the affiant.

Pola v. United States, ___ F.3d ___, ___, 2015 WL 690312 (6th Cir. Feb. 19, 2015) (Although 2255 petitioners do not have an absolute right to attend evidentiary hearings, the district court may not prevent Pola from testifying in support of his claim. Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, 20"21, 83 S.Ct. 1068, 10 L.Ed.2d 148 (1963). It appears there are at least two possible solutions. Pola may request that the Attorney General authorize Pola's admission to the United States, subject to conditions, for the limited purpose of attending the evidentiary hearing. See 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(3)(A).