Rodriguez-Echeverria v. Mukasey, ___ F.3d ___ (9th Cir. Jul. ___, 2008) (noncitizen locked in a room overnight by the DHS had been "arrested" for purposes of 8 C.F.R. 287.3, requiring advisal of right to counsel and that any statements made could be used against the noncitizen; case remanded to BIA to determine whether statements can be suppressed because DHS violated the regulation and/or whether there was a Fifth Amendment due process violation).

Matter of Rotimi, 24 I. & N. Dec. 567 (BIA 2008) (the period a lawful permanent resident spent in the United States as an applicant for asylum or while adjustment of status was pending does not count toward 7-years lawful residence requirement under INA 212(h), where the noncitizen lacked any other basis on which to claim lawful residence). http://www.usdoj.gov/eoir/vll/intdec/vol24/3616.pdf

The right to an in camera inspection of defense counsel's file arises once the government claims there has been a waiver due to a claim of IAC. The waiver is only as broad as necessary to enable the govt. to litigate the IAC claim. Defense counsel can make a motion for in camera inspection of the defensive file and for a protective order when the government moves to obtain a copy of the allegedly ineffective defense counsel's file. See Bittaker v. Woodford, 331 F.3d 715 (9th Cir. 2003).

The Los Angeles District Attorney's Office, referring to the California Rules of Court requiring the sentencing judge to take account of collateral immigration consequences in deciding whether to grant probation, has enacted a Special Directive allowing prosecutors to depart from normal plea bargaining and post-conviction policies where collateral consequences "have so great an adverse impact on a defendant that the resulting punishment may not fit the crime." This provision authorizes a departure from policy when "unusual or extraordinary circumstances exist which demand a departure in the i

Renteria-Morales v. Mukasey, 532 F.3d 949 (9th Cir. Jul. 10, 2008) (federal conviction for failure to appear in court, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 3146 is not categorically an aggravated felony as defined by INA 101(a)(43)(Q) or (T); under the modified categorical approach, court was allowed to look to the record of conviction to determine the maximum punishment allowed for the underlying convictions and to determine whether the failure to appear was pursuant to "service of a sentence" or to "answer to or dispose of a charge of a felony.").

Williams v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 1040 (9th Cir. Jul. 9, 2008) (publication in federal register of deadline upon which noncitizen previously ordered removed could move to reopen in order to apply for CAT, a new form of relief, was sufficient notice of deadline; noncitizen did not have right to actual notice of the deadline).

Williams v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 1040 (9th Cir. Jul. 9, 2008) (publication in federal register of deadline upon which noncitizen previously ordered removed could move to reopen in order to apply for CAT, a new form of relief, was sufficient notice of deadline; noncitizen did not have right to actual notice of the deadline).

United States v. Fuller, 531 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. Jul. 8, 2008) (elements of the offense of possession of an identification document that appears to be made by or under the authority of the U.S. which is stolen or produced without lawful authority, under 18 U.S.C. 1028(a)(6), do not include a requirement that the identification document in question appeared to be issued by a real agency of the United States).

United States v. Mendoza-Gonzalez, 520 F.3d 912 (8th Cir. 2008) (elements of aggravated identity theft, under 18 U.S.C. 1028A, do not require document belonged to real person).