News article on private bills contains good explanation of the process, strategy, and chances of success. Single-family immigration bills face great difficulty in Congress, McClatchy Newspapers, Tucson, Arizona (June 15, 2008), http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/border/243832

Dela Cruz v. Mukasey, 532 F.3d 946 (9th Cir. Jul. 9, 2008) (filing petition for review with circuit court does not toll statutory time limit for filing motion to reopen/reconsider with the BIA).

Nethagani v. Mukasey, 532 F.3d 150 (2d Cir. Jul. 9, 2008) (New York conviction for first degree reckless endangerment [discharge of a firearm into the air] is a particularly serious crime for purposes of withholding of removal; a crime can be a particularly serious crime for purposes of withholding of removal even if it is not an aggravated felony).

Bustamante v. Musakey, 531 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. Jul. 9, 2008) ("We hold today, as we did twenty-two years ago in Li Hing of Hong Kong, Inc. v. Levin, 800 F.2d 970, 971 (9th Cir.1986), that ordinarily, a consular official's decision to deny a visa to a foreigner is not subject to judicial review. However, when a U.S.

Nethagani v. Mukasey, 532 F.3d 150 (2d Cir. Jul. 9, 2008) ("when a statute authorizes the Attorney General to make a determination, but lacks additional language specifically rendering that determination to be within his discretion . . . the decision is not one that is specified . . . to be in the discretion of the Attorney General for purposes of [8 U.S.C. ] 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii).")

Garcia-Villeda v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 141 (2d Cir. Jul. 8, 2008) (reinstatement regulations, at 8 C.F.R. 241.8, constitute a valid interpretation of 8 U.S.C. 1231(a)(5), and does not contravene 8 U.S.C. 1229a; bar to collateral attack of prior removal order does not violate due process; petition did not qualify for and did not ask for consent to re-enter the United States, as required under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(C)(i)(II) & (ii)).

Hasmi v. Mukasey, __ F.3d __ (3d Cir. Jul. 7, 2008) ("Petitioner Ajmal Hussain Shah Hashmis removal proceedings were adjourned on multiple occasions while he awaited adjudication of his pending I-130 application (a claim for residency based on his marriage to a United States citizen). After eighteen months had elapsed, the Immigration Judge (IJ) denied a further continuance - despite the governments consent - because the case had been pending far longer than the eight-month period suggested by the case-completion goals set by the Department of Justice (DOJ) for this type of case.

Beltran v. Mukasey, 2008 WL 2660859 (6th Cir. Jul. 7, 2008) (unpublished) ("The remand was not license for the BIA to consider wholly new legal arguments that could not have been raised in this Court absent the remand. "[U]pon remand of a case for further proceedings after a decision by the appellate court, the trial court must proceed in accordance with the mandate and the law of the case as established on appeal. The trial court must implement both the letter and the spirit of the mandate, taking into account the appellate court's opinion and the circumstances it embraces." Brunet v.

In accordance with Camins v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 872, 885 (9th Cir. 2007), San Francisco CBPs Deferred Inspections Unit has stopped issuing NTAs to LPRs returning from a brief, casual, and innocent trip abroad, where their guilty or no contest plea to an pre-IIRIRA offense would previously have rendered them inadmissible under INA 212(a)(2).

9 FAM 40 requires referral to a panel physician of an immigrant visa applicant has prior DUIS. A 2004 CIS memo states that DUIs may be the basis of finding of a mental disorder that is harmful to others. Counsel may therefore want to provide proof (to the extent possible) that the person either is no longer drinking and/or has rehabilitated to where alcohol is not a problem in creating risking behavior, such as evaluation from substance abuse center or therapist and attendance AA meetings.