Aburto-Rocha v. Mukasey, __ F.3d __, 2008 WL 2875384 (6th Cir. Jul. 28, 2008) (court has jurisdiction to review cancellation of removal hardship issue where noncitizen claims the BIA failed to follow own precedent, since "[t]he BIA's regulations themselves indicate that adherence to precedent is a non-discretionary act, as they require the agency to follow its own precedents except to the extent they are modified or overruled by the BIA or the Attorney General. See 8 C.F.R. 1003.1(g).").

Prieto-Romero v. Clark, ___ F.3d ___, 2008 WL 2853396 (9th Cir. Jul. 25, 2008) (noncitizen whose removal order is administratively final, but removal is stayed pending court of appeals' resolution of petition for review, is subject to detention under 8 U.S.C.

Ceta v. Mukasey, ___ F.3d ___, 2008 WL 2854153 (7th Cir. Jul. 25, 2008) ("The immigration court's lack of jurisdiction to entertain adjustment applications was not a rational basis for denying Mr. Ceta's continuance request but merely a reiteration of the amended regulation.").

Singh v. Mukasey, ___ F.3d ___, 2008 WL 2813039 (9th Cir. Jul. 23 2008) (the REAL ID Act gives noncitizens whose removal orders became final before the REAL ID Act a reasonable opportunity to obtain judicial review, but those whose petitions were rendered untimely by the Act had a grace period of no more than 30 days from the effective date of the Act in which to seek such review).

United States v. Jimenez, ___ F.3d ___, 2008 WL 2813046 (9th Cir. Jul. 23, 2008) (federal conviction for unlawful use of a communication facility, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 843(b), qualifies as "drug trafficking offenses" under USSG 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i)), following United States v. Orihuela, 320 F.3d 1302, 1305 (11th Cir. 2003).

Paredes v. Attorney General of U.S., 528 F.3d 196 (3d Cir. Jun. 9, 2008) (noncitizen must exhaust claim before BIA before raising it on petition for review), citing 8 U.S.C. 1252(d)(1) (exhaustion of administrative remedies mandatory and jurisdictional); see also Bonhometre v. Gonzales, 414 F.3d 442, 447 (3d Cir.2005) ("To exhaust a claim before the agency, an applicant must first raise the issue before the BIA or IJ, so as to give it the opportunity to resolve a controversy or correct its own errors before judicial intervention." (internal quotations and citation omitted)).

Perez Pimentel v. Mukasey, 530 F.3d 321 (5th Cir. Jun. 4, 2008) (Attorney General's promulgation of 8 C.F.R. 212.7(d) [the Attorney General generally "will not favorably exercise discretion ... with respect to immigrant aliens who are inadmissible ... in cases involving violent or dangerous crimes, except in extraordinary circumstances, such as those ... cases in which an alien clearly demonstrates that the denial of [relief] would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship."] not an ultra vires amendment of 8 U.S.C. 1182(h)(1)(B)), citing Mejia v.

Perez Pimentel v. Mukasey, 530 F.3d 321 (5th Cir. Jun.4, 2008) (8 C.F.R. 212.7(d) - creating enhanced hardship standard for violent or dangerous crimes - is not impermissibly retroactive because it does not completely foreclose relief and "neither attaches a new disability to past conduct nor upsets settled expectations."), citing Mejia v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 991, 998 (9th Cir. 2007) (rejecting retroactivity challenge to 8 C.F.R. 212.7(d)).

Lazaro v. Mukasey, 527 F.3d 977 (9th Cir. Jun. 4, 2008) (remanding case to BIA to decide in first instance question whether the IJ acted beyond her authority in amending his NTA sua sponte).

United States v. Cepeda-Rios, 530 F.3d 333 (5th Cir. Jun. 4, 2008) (California conviction of sale of tar heroin, in violation of Health & Safety Code 11352, constituted a drug trafficking aggravated felony for illegal re-entry sentencing purposes; although misdemeanor possessory offense is not an aggravated felony by itself, because the conviction was a misdemeanor, defendants prior drug conviction made the conviction a felony under the hypothetical federal prosecution analysis; court did not address argument that prior must be proven in subsequent conviction), following United States v.