Kirong v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 800 (8th Cir. Jun. 20, 2008) (although courts lacks jurisdiction to review discretionary denial of relief, court retained jurisdiction to review statutory ground of denial where the statutory basis for denial could result in the noncitizen being permanently inadmissible to the United States).

Kirong v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 800 (8th Cir. Jun. 20, 2008) (noncitizen seeking to adjust status as a defense to removal must establish clearly and beyond doubt that he is not inadmissible to the United States).

Kirong v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 800 (8th Cir. Jun. 20, 2008) (noncitizen who checks on I-9 form that he is a US Citizen or National is seeking a "benefit" under the Act), following Rodriguez v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 773, 776 (8th Cir.2008).

Kirong v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 800 (8th Cir. Jun. 20, 2008) (where the record is ambiguous as to whether noncitizen intended to indicate he was a United States citizen or a National by checking "citizen or nation" box on I-9 form, noncitizen has failed to meet his burden to show clearly and beyond doubt that he is not inadmissible to the United States as a noncitizen who has made a false claim to U.S. citizenship).

Ali v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 478 (2d Cir. Jun.18, 2008) (IJ's seeming bias against the petitioner and reliance on unfounded assumptions about homosexuals deprived the petitioner of his right to a fair hearing).

Ali v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 478 (2d Cir. June 18, 2008) (counsels acknowledgement on the record that IJs decision was "final" signified that counsel had waived appeal to the BIA).

Gonzalez-Mesias v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 62 (1st Cir. Jun.18, 2008) (212(c) relief unavailable to waive aggravated felony sexual abuse of a minor or crime of violence; court indicated that BIA would not follow Blake v. Carbone outside the second circuit), following Dalombo Fontes v. Gonzales, 483 F.3d 115 (1st Cir. 2007) ; Kim v. Gonzales, 468 F.3d 58 (1st Cir. 2006), disagreeing with Blake v. Carbone, 489 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2007).

People v. Wilkinson, 163 Cal.App.4th 1554 (Cal.App. 3 Dist. Jun.18, 2008) (California case prosecuting defendant for violation of Penal Code 459, burglary, where defendant entered into bedroom of roommate to download images from roommates computer).

The Social Security Administrations no-match letter and the employees failure to meet a short deadline to resolve the discrepancy did not put the employer on constructive notice that it was employing undocumented workers, the Ninth Circuit held. See Aramark Facility Services v. SEIU, No. 06-56662, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 12704 (9th Cir. Jun. 16, 2008). Importantly, the events that gave rise to this case took place in 2003, prior to DHS promulgation of the new rule regarding no-match letters and the safe harbor procedures ("safe harbor regulations"), 72 Fed. Reg. 45611 (Aug.

Belmontes v. Ayers, 529 F.3d 834 (9th Cir. Jun.13, 2008) (reversing denial of habeas relief, in a capital case, where petitioner received inadequate representation by his counsel at the penalty phase of his trial, particularly with regard to counsel's investigation and presentation of mitigating evidence).