Matter of Abdelghany, 26 I&N Dec. 254, 269 (BIA 2014)(the BIA drew no distinction, for the purpose of retroactivity of eligibility for relief under former INA 212(c), between convictions at trial or guilty pleas, and found unpersuasive precedential decisions demanding a showing of detrimental reliance on the availability of relief: a lawful permanent resident convicted after trial need not demonstrate that he acted or could have acted in reliance on the availability of 212(c) relief when structuring his conduct.

The BIA explained:

If an otherwise qualifying LPR is removable or deportable by virtue of a plea or conviction between Apr. 24, 1996 and Apr. 1, 1997, 212(c) relief is available unless: (1) proceedings were commenced on or after Apr.

Pascual v. Holder, 723 F.3d 156, ___ (2d Cir. July 9, 2013) (per curiam) (New York conviction for sale of a controlled substance, under New York Penal Law 220.39, is categorically an illicit trafficking in a controlled substance type of aggravated felony even though the conviction merely involved an attempt to sell: Unlike the Connecticut statute, NYPL 220.39 does not criminalize mere offers (or fraudulent offers) to sell narcotics.

Parra-Rojas v. Attorney General, 747 F.3d 164 (3d Cir. March 26, 2014) (transporting illegal entrant from one area of the United States to another does not constitute bringing in or harboring for financial gain, under 8 U.S.C. 1324(a)(2)(B)(ii)).

United States v. Pascacio-Rodriguez, 749 F.3d 353 (5th Cir. Apr. 11, 2014) (Nevada conviction for violation of N.R.S.

Rodriguez v. Robbins, 715 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2013) (bright-line rule that immigration detention exceeding six months requires a bond hearing); compare Diop v. ICE/DHS Diop v. ICE/Homeland Sec., 656 F.3d 221 (3d Cir. 2011), and Ly v. Hansen, 351 F.3d 263 (6th Cir. 2003) (adopting a loosely defined standard that asks whether detention has become unreasonably prolonged).

United States v. Gomez, __ F.3d __, 2014 WL 1623725 (9th Cir. Apr. 24, 2014) (Arizona conviction for violation of ARS 13-405, sexual conduct with a minor under the age of fifteen, is not necessarily a crime of violence, as sexual abuse of a minor, for illegal re-entry sentencing purposes, under current law), applying tests of Estrada"Espinoza v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2008).

United States v. Sheldon, __ F.3d __ (9th Cir. Apr. 9, 2014) (federal conviction for violation of 18 U.S.C. 2251(a) does not require proof that defendant had knowledge that the materials used to produce child pornography had travelled in interstate commerce).

United States v. Barrios-Siguenza, 747 F.3d 1222, 1223 (9th Cir. Apr. 9, 2014) (We were assured at oral argument that Barrios will return for trial should the government choose to retry him and parole him into the country for that purpose. Cf. United States v. Leal"Del Carmen, 697 F.3d 964, 975 (9th Cir. 2012) (discussing the Attorney General's authority to parole aliens into the country to testify in criminal prosecutions (citing 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)(A))).

Ragasa v. Holder, ___ F.3d ___, ___, 2014 WL 1661491 (9th Cir. Apr. 28, 2014) (Hawaii conviction for promotion of a dangerous drug, in violation of HRS 705"500(1)(b), 712"1241(1)(b)(ii), is not categorically a controlled substances offense; Ragasa is not categorically removable under Section 237(a)(2)(B)(i) of the INA because his statute of conviction criminalizes at least two substances that are not similarly proscribed by the CSA: benzylfentanyl and thenylfentanyl. Compare Haw.Rev.Stat. 329"14(b)(56) & (57) (2003); Haw.Rev.Stat. 712"1240 (2004); Haw.Rev.Stat.