Vega v. Ryan, ___ F.3d ___, 2014 WL 2019294 (9th Cir. May 19, 2014), superseding opinion, 735 F.3d 1093 (9th Cir. Nov. 13, 2013) (reversing denial of habeas corpus petition based on counsels failure to review file and call exculpatory witness, since defense counsel has a duty to investigate even if his or her client does not divulge relevant information, so reasonable jurists could not disagree that trial counsel's performance here was deficient).

In Vega v. Ryan, ___ F.3d ___, 2014 WL 2019294 (9th Cir. May 19, 2014), superseding opinion, 735 F.3d 1093 (9th Cir. Nov. 13, 2013), the Ninth Circuit held that defense counsels duty to investigate is not diminished by the fact that the defendant himself may already be aware of the information. This decision has an important application to a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to investigate the defendants immigration status, which led to the Padilla errors of failure to advice or mistaken advice to the client concerning immigration consequences of the plea.

12 U.S.C. 2607(b) and (d)(1) prohibit accepting an illegal fee or aiding and abetting such receipt.

12 U.S.C.

Open Letter on What’s Up with Us at the Law Offices of Norton Tooby

        Please pay close attention to this letter if you subscribe to any of our newsletters or are interested in our legal consultation services.

Go v. Holder, 744 F.3d 604 (9th Cir. Mar. 7, 2014) (the specific time and number limitations on motions to reopen, 8 C.F.R. 1003.2(c), apply to motions to reopen that arise under the Convention Against Torture).

People v. Petrovic, 224 Cal.App.4th 1510, 169 Cal.Rptr.3d 648 (2d Dist. Mar. 26, 2014) (California conviction of knowingly possessing or controlling child pornography on a computer, under Penal Code 311.11(a), punished merely visiting child pornography websites, without evidence of actual possession or control of the pornography), compare United States v. Kuchinski, 469 F.3d 853 (9th Cir.

People v. Medina, 2011 WL 766949 (6th Dist. Mar. 4, 2011) (unpublished) (rule against piecemeal litigation does not bar a defendant from pursuing a motion to vacate under Penal Code 1016.5, after first unsuccessfully filing a petition for a writ of error coram nobis, because unlike Kim, here defendant did not file two nonstatutory motions to vacate on the same grounds; he filed different motions on different grounds); distinguishing People v.

Unlike circuit courts, where only an en banc decision can overrule a three-judge panel, a three-member panel of the Board can overrule any prior precedential decision. See, e.g., Matter of Alyazji, 25 I&N Dec. 397 (BIA 2011). Presumably, this is because a decision can only be designated as precedential following a vote in which it receives the support of a majority of permanent Board members. 8 CFR 1003.1(g). Thus, even when a decision only contains the names of three members, it has the support of a majority of the Board's permanent members. Thanks to Ben Winograd.

NIP-NLG and Immigrant Defense Project have written an advisory on the Supreme Courts recent decision in U.S v. Castleman. The advisory explains why this decision should have no negative impact on immigration law and how it may even support arguments to narrow the domestic violence and aggravated felony removal grounds. The advisory is located at: http://www.nationalimmigrationproject.org/publications.htm

Matter of Sierra, 26 I&N Dec. 288 (BIA 2014) (Nevada conviction for violation of NRS 193.330, 205.273, possession of a stolen vehicle, is not a categorical aggravated felony theft offense under INA 101(a)(43)(G), for immigration purposes, since the statute only requires reason to believe that the property received was stolen, but the generic definition of receipt of stolen property applicable to the aggravated felony definition requires knowledge).