Phillips v. Hust, __ F.3d __, 2007 WL 446593 (9th Cir. Feb. 13, 2007) (arbitrary denial by prison officials of access to materials that prison routinely did made available to inmates, for the preparation of legal documents, constitutes a denial of an inmate's right of access to the courts where it results in the loss of a legal claim).

Caroleo v. Gonzales 476 F.3d 158 (3d Cir. Feb. 7, 2007) (former INA 212(c) relief unavailable to waive aggravated felony crime of violence, even if offense itself is also a crime of moral turpitude; look to categories of removal, not nature of crimes).



Note that the concurring opinion suggests that a noncitizen who is deportable on the basis of an aggravated felony that would also render noncitizen deportable on the basis of a CMT may still be eligible for 212(c) relief.

Bravo-Pedroza v. Gonzales, 475 F.3d 1358 (9th Cir. Feb. 6, 2007) (res judicata bars DHS from initiating second deportation proceedings based upon allegations and charges that could have been made over the course of the first case).

Matter of Avila-Perez, 24 I. & N. Dec. 78 (BIA 2007) (CSPA applies to a noncitizen whose visa petition was filed before the CSPA effective date of Aug., 6, 2002, but who filed the application for adjustment after that date).

United States v. Tunning, 69 F.3d 107 (6th Cir. 1995) (''Alford'' plea refers to defendant who pleads guilty but maintains that he is innocent).

Morales-Izquierdo v. Gonzales, 477 F.3d 691 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc) ("We conclude that a previously removed alien who reenters the country illegally is not entitled to a hearing before an immigration judge to determine whether to reinstate a prior removal order. The reinstatement statute and its implementing regulation comport with due process, and 8 C.F.R. 241.8 is a valid interpretation of the INA.").

United States v. Gunera, __ F.3d __, 2007 WL 456732 (5th Cir. Feb. 13, 2007) (where the defendant was "found" in the United States more than five years following the defendants unlawful re-entry, indictment was barred by statute of limitations).

Obasohan v. U.S. Attorney General, ___ F.3d ___, 2007 WL 548359 (11th Cir. Feb. 23, 2007)(federal conviction of conspiracy to produce, use and traffic in counterfeit access devices, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1029(b)(2), with a $37,000 restitution order for uncharged conduct, did not constitute an aggravated felony fraud offense, under INA 101(a)(43)(M)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(M)(i), for purposes of removal, on the basis of the record of the offense of conviction: "In this case, the elements of the conspiracy with which Obasohan was charged did not require that any loss amount be proved.

Obasohan v. U.S. Attorney General, ___ F.3d ___, 2007 WL 548359 (11th Cir. Feb. 23, 2007) ("Relevant conduct for sentencing purposes . . . may include criminal conduct that was not charged. See United States v. Ignancio Munio, 909 F.2d 436, 438-39 (11th Cir.1990). Relevant conduct may also include acquitted conduct. United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. 148, 117 S.Ct. 633, 136 L.Ed.2d 554 (1997); United States v. Averi, 922 F.2d 765, 766 (11th Cir.1991).

Lavira v. Attorney General of U.S., 478 F.3d 158 (3d Cir. Feb. 26, 2007) (reversing where IJ failed to examine underlying facts of the case in determining whether conviction for attempted sale of a controlled substance was a "particularly serious crime" for asylum/withholding purposes), following Vente v. Gonzales, 415 F.3d 296, 302-03 (3d Cir.2005) ("[I]f the BIA fails to address one of an applicant's stated grounds for relief, the case must be remanded for the BIA to consider the claim.").