Sandoval-Gomez v. Holder, ___ F.3d ___, 2014 WL 4668962 (9th Cir. Sept. 22, 2014) (California conviction of attempted arson, in violation of Penal Code 455, constituted aggravated felony arson under, INA 101(a)(43)(E), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(E) under the modified categorical approach; the federal element found in section 844 is a purely jurisdictional element which must be disregarded in determining whether the state law qualifies as an aggravated felony under federal law), vacated 771 F.3d 511 (9th Cir. Oct. 24, 2014).

United States v. Reyes, ___ F.3d ___, 2014 WL 6600420 (9th Cir. Nov. 21, 2014) (district court properly applied an enhancement for harboring unaccompanied minor aliens, as it was reasonably foreseeable to the defendant that unaccompanied minors would be present; and district court did not clearly err in finding that this smuggling organization detained aliens both in connection with a demand for payment and through coercion or threat, and in finding that such detention was reasonably foreseeable by the defendant).

Cervantes v. Holder, ___ F.3d ___, 2014 WL 6463031 (9th Cir. Nov. 19, 2014) (California conviction for threatening to commit a crime resulting in death or great bodily injury under Penal Code 422 is categorically a crime of moral turpitude, for purposes of determining whether immigrant was inadmissible under INA 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I)); following Latter"Singh v. Holder, 668 F.3d 1156, 1163 (9th Cir. 2012).

Cervantes v. Holder, ___ F.3d ___, ___, 2014 WL 6463031 (9th Cir. Nov.

Cervantes v. Holder, ___ F.3d ___, ___, 2014 WL 6463031 (9th Cir. Nov. 19, 2014) (an alien's description of his crimes is not an acceptable source of evidence under the modified categorical approach.); see Sandoval"Lua v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 1121, 1129 n. 7 (9th Cir. 2007) ([U]nder the modified categorical approach we may not consider ... testimony about the alien's criminal conduct.), abrogated on other grounds by Young v. Holder, 697 F.3d 976, 979 (9th Cir.2012) (en banc).

Cervantes v. Holder, ___ F.3d ___, 2014 WL 6463031 (9th Cir. Nov. 19, 2014) (the petty offense exception to inadmissibility, under INA 212(a)(2)(A)(ii), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)(A)(ii), based on a crime of moral turpitude, is mandatory and does not have any discretionary component); accord, Matter of Salvail, 17 I. & N. Dec. 19, 21 (BIA 1979) (explaining that the relief afforded by the petty offense exception is mandatory).

Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (review is generally limited to the information in the administrative record: court is statutorily prevented from taking judicial notice of the Country Report that petitioner did not submit to the BIA).

The court stated: We may review out-of-record evidence only where (1) the Board considers the evidence; or (2) the Board abuses its discretion by failing to consider such evidence upon the motion of an applicant. Id. at 964; see also Altawil v. INS, 179 F.3d 791, 792 (9th Cir.

Lising v. INS, 124 F.3d 996, 998-99 (9th Cir. 1997) (court is not precluded from taking judicial notice of an agencys own records; affirming taking judicial notice of application for naturalization); Gafoor v. INS, 231 F.3d 645, 655-57 (9th Cir. 2000) (court may take judicial notice of dramatic foreign developments that occur after the BIAs determination: taking judicial notice of Fijian coup which occurred after the BIAs decision), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated by Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734 (9th Cir. 2009); Singh v. Ashcroft, 393 F.3d 903, 905-07 (9th Cir.

United States v. Martinez, 771 F.3d 672 (9th Cir. Nov. 14, 2014) (California conviction under Vehicle Code 2800.2 for vehicle flight from a pursuing peace officer, was a "violent felony" under the ACCA's residual clause, 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(2)(B)(ii)).

United States v. Huitron-Rocha, ___ F.3d ___, 2014 WL 5801404 (9th Cir. Nov. 7, 2014) (California Health and Safety Code 11352(a) is a divisible statute, so the modified categorical analysis can be used to examine the record of conviction to determine if the specific controlled substance involved in the case is identified and if so is on the federal list); Coronado v. Holder, 759 F.3d 977, 983"85 & n.