Xiong v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 530 (8th Cir. Apr. 12, 2007) (a noncitizen who enters the United States as a refugee, adjust status, and then is convicted of a deportable criminal offense may be placed in removal proceedings even though the DHS has not terminated refugee status), agreeing with Kaganovich v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 894 (9th Cir.2006); Romanishyn v. Atty. Gen. of the United States, 455 F.3d 175, 180 (3d Cir.2006); Matter of Smriko, 23 I & N Dec. 836 (BIA 2005).

The BIA, citing 8 CFR 1003.2(d) and 1003.23(b)(1), takes the position that the BIA and IJs lack jurisdiction to review motions filed by people who have been deported or have departed and that any departure from the United States constitutes the withdrawal of a pending motion. The Ninth and Eleventh Circuits, however, have found these regulations inapplicable in certain situations. Lin v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 979 (9th Cir.

Matter of MD, 24 I. & N. Dec. 138 (BIA 2007) (although the IJ cannot reconsider the prior decision of the BIA on whether to grant or deny a given form of relief, upon remand to the IJ for completion of background checks, the IJ can consider additional evidence regarding new or previously unconsidered relief if the evidentiary requirements for a motion to reopen have been met).

United States Citizenship may be sometimes proven by showing a child appeared on a U.S. census in the United States shortly after birth. Contact US Census Bureau.
Thanks to Mary Lee Eldridge

Hillcrest Baptist Church v. U.S.A., __ F.Supp.2d __, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12782 (W.D. Wash. 2007) (under Ninth Circuit precedent, 28 USC 1331 (federal question jurisdiction) and the Administrative Procedure Act give the court jurisdiction to review DHS denial of adjustment of status before the noncitizen in placed in removal proceedings).

De La Cruz v. Maurer, 483 F.3d 1013 (10th Cir. April 3, 2007) ("where a specific issue was not addressed in administrative proceedings in the manner it is now addressed before us, general statements in the notice of appeal to the BIA are insufficient to constitute exhaustion of administrative remedies."), citing Ramani v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 554, 560 (6th Cir. 2004).

De La Cruz v. Maurer, 483 F.3d 1013 (10th Cir. April 3, 2007) (court failed to reach claim that Utah misdemeanor conviction of possession of a controlled substance did not constitute a controlled substance offense, under INA 237(a)(2)(B)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(B)(i), by analogy to the Sentencing Guidelines' definition requiring a trafficking element, because this specific claim had not been exhausted before the BIA), citing Salinas v. United States, 547 U.S.

De La Cruz v. Maurer, 483 F.3d 1013 (10th Cir. April 3, 2007) (due process and equal protection claims relating to stop-time rule for cancellation of removal constitute constitutional claims over which court has petition for review jurisdiction).

De La Cruz v. Maurer, 483 F.3d 1013 (10th Cir. April 3, 2007) (due process and equal protection claims relating to stop-time rule for cancellation of removal constitute constitutional claims over which court has petition for review jurisdiction).

De La Cruz v. Maurer, 483 F.3d 1013 (10th Cir. April 3, 2007) (claims involving interpretation of treaties constitute questions of law over which court has petition for review jurisdiction: "Congress's treaty power is given similar weight to its legislative power."); O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 973, 988, 1009 n.5 (10th Cir. 2004) ("an Act of Congress ... is on a full parity with a treaty."); cf. Valentine v. United States, 299 U.S. 5, 10 (1936) ("The Constitution declares a treaty to be the law of the land. It is consequently ...