Penuliar v. Ashcroft, 528 F.3d 603 (9th Cir. Jun. 10, 2008) (California conviction for evading an officer, in violation of California Vehicle Code 2800.2(a) is not categorically an aggravated felony crime of violence for immigration purposes).

Penuliar v. Ashcroft, 528 F.3d 603 (9th Cir. Jun. 10, 2008) (California conviction for violation of California Vehicle Code 10851, unlawful driving of a motor vehicle, is not categorically an aggravated felony "theft" offense for immigration purposes, since that statutes includes accessories after the fact), following United States v. Vidal, 504 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2007)

Paredes v. Attorney General of U.S., 528 F.3d 196 (3d Cir. Jun.9, 2008)("[A] conviction does not attain a sufficient degree of finality for immigration purposes until direct appellate review of the conviction has been exhausted or waived." Matter of Ozkok, 19 I. & N. Dec. 546, 552 n. 7 (BIA 1988) (citing Marino v. INS, 537 F.2d 686 (2d Cir. 1976); Aguilera-Enriquez v. INS, 516 F.2d 565 (6th Cir.1975); Will v. INS, 447 F.2d 529 (7th Cir. 1971)), superceded by statute on other grounds.

Paredes v. Attorney General of U.S., 528 F.3d 196 (3d Cir. Jun. 9, 2008) ("pendency of post-conviction motions or other forms of collateral attack . . . does not vitiate finality [of a conviction for removal purposes], unless and until the convictions are overturned as a result of the collateral motions."), citing United States v. Garcia-Echaverria, 374 F.3d 440, 445-46 (6th Cir. 2004); Grageda v. INS, 12 F .3d 919, 921 (9th Cir. 1993); Okabe v. INS, 671 F.2d 863, 865 (5th Cir. 1982); Will v. INS, 447 F.2d 529, 533 (7th Cir. 1971).

Haxhiaj v. Hackman, 528 F.3d 282 (4th Cir. Jun. 9, 2008) (evidence was sufficient to establish probably cause, and thus was sufficient so support extradition order to Italy, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3184 (2007)).

Haxhiaj v. Hackman, 528 F.3d 282 (4th Cir. Jun. 9, 2008) (evidence was sufficient to establish probably cause, and thus was sufficient so support extradition order to Italy, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3184 (2007)).

United States v. Rodriguez-Rodriguez, ___ F.3d ___, 2008 WL 2332528 (5th Cir. Jun. 9, 2008) (affirming as reasonable illegal reentry sentence at lower end of guidelines range against abuse-of-discretion challenge).

New AILF practice advisory: Trina Realmuto, "Finality" of Removal Orders for Judicial Review Purposes (June 23, 2008). Addressing whether a BIA remand, for example, affects the "finality" of a removal order.
http://www.ailf.org/lac/pa/lac_pa_finrem.pdf

Julce v. Mukasey, 530 F.3d 30 (1st Cir. Jun. 20, 2008)
(Massachusetts conviction of possession with intent to distribute a Class D substance (marijuana), in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 94C, 32C(a), constituted aggravated felony drug trafficking conviction, under INA 101(a)(43)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(B), for purposes of the aggravated felony disqualification from eligibility for cancellation of removal for LPRs, rejecting the argument that the offense would have been treated as a misdemeanor pursuant to 21 U.S.C.

Julce v. Mukasey, 530 F.3d 30 (1st Cir. Jun.20, 2008)
(burden is on the noncitizen/defendant to show that a state conviction for distribution of marijuana would have been treated as a misdemeanor pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 841(b)(4), under the hypothetical federal felony analysis, if prosecuted under federal law; court leaves open the question of whether the noncitizen must meet burden only through criminal documents or can introduce additional evidence before the IJ), disagreeing with Wilson v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 377, 381 (3d Cir.2003)