Magasouba v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 13 (1st Cir. Sept. 30, 2008) (Rhode Island conviction for trafficking in trademark counterfeits, in violation of R.I. Gen. Laws 11-17-13(c)(1), for immigration purposes).

United States v. Cardenas-Cardenas, 543 F.3d 731 (5th Cir. Sept. 25, 2008) (Texas conviction for burglary of a habitation, in violation of Texas Penal Code 30.02(a)(1), is a crime of violence for illegal re-entry purposes, since the offense is equivalent to "residential burglary."

Gertsenshteyn v. Mukasey, 544 F.3d 137 (2d Cir. Sept. 25, 2008) (federal conviction of violating and conspiring to violate 18 U.S.C. 2422(a), enticing individuals to travel in interstate or foreign commerce to engage in prostitution, did not constitute an aggravated felony under INA 101(a)(43)(K)(ii), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(K)(ii) ("an offense that ... is described in section 2421, 2422 or 2423 of Title 18 ...

Gertsenshteyn v. Mukasey, 544 F.3d 137 (2d Cir. Sept. 25, 2008) ("[T]he INA premises removability not on what an alien has done, or may have done, or is likely to do in the future (tempting as it may be to consider those factors), but on what he or she has been formally convicted of in a court of law.

Gertsenshteyn v. Mukasey, 544 F.3d 137 (2d Cir. Sept. 25, 2008) ("When the Government has decided to seek the removal of a lawfully admitted alien under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), the Government is obligated to prove that the alien's conviction falls within the statutory definition of "aggravated felony." See 8 U.S.C. 1229a(c)(3)(A); Ibragimov v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 125, 131 (2d Cir .2007). That the Government finds that task difficult in some cases is no reason for immigration courts to renounce the restrictions that the courts have said the law requires.")

Gertsenshteyn v. Mukasey, 544 F.3d 137 (2d Cir. Sept. 25, 2008) (federal conviction of violating and conspiring to violate 18 U.S.C. 2422(a), enticing individuals to travel in interstate or foreign commerce to engage in prostitution, did not constitute an aggravated felony under INA 101(a)(43)(K)(ii), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(K)(ii) ("an offense that ... is described in section 2421, 2422 or 2423 of Title 18 ...

Quinchia v. U.S. Atty Gen., 537 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir. Aug. 7, 2008) (When faced with unpublished BIA decision interpreting INA without reliance on on-point precedent: "Two options exist. The first is to decide the issue ourselves under the lesser level of deference enunciated in Skidmore v. Swift & Company, 323 U.S. 134, 140, 65 S.Ct. 161, 89 L.Ed.

Rafiyev v. Mukasey, 536 F.3d 853 (8th Cir. Aug. 5, 2008) (there is no constitutional right under the Fifth Amendment to effective assistance of counsel in a removal proceeding).

Bayo v. Chertoff, 535 F.3d 749 (7th Cir. Aug. 1, 2008) (waiver of right to removal proceedings, under Visa Waiver Program unconstitutional unless waiver was knowingly and voluntarily entered). HYPERLINK "http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/7th/071069p.pdf"

Chernez-Viteri v. U.S., __ F.Supp.3d __, 2008 WL 2945443 (Unpublished) (W.D.N.C. Jul. 25, 2008) ("This Court finds that the possibility of deportation or permanent exclusion from the United States were areas of great concern to Petitioner and that absent the erroneous legal advice that he received concerning this issue, he would have rejected the plea offer and proceeded to trial.