CONVICTION - DATE OF CONVICTION
Puello v. BCIS, 418 F.Supp.2d 436 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 13, 2005) (for purposes of applying the permanent bar to good moral character for conviction of an aggravated felony, under INA 101(f), the date of conviction is the date of sentencing or the date the judgment of conviction was filed with Clerk of Court, rather than on date the guilty plea was entered).
DIVISIBLE STATUTE - ALTERNATIVE MEANS OF COMMITTING SINGLE OFFENSE - WEAPONS - FEDERAL - USE OF FIREARM DURING DRUG TRAFFICKING
United States v. Arreola, 467 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. Nov. 8, 2006) (18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(A), punishing "any person who, during and in relation to any ... drug trafficking crime ... uses or carries a firearm, or who, in furtherance of any such crime, possesses a firearm," describes two alternative means to commit a single offense).
AGGRAVATED FELONY - CRIME OF VIOLENCE - KIDNAP NOT CRIME OF VIOLENCE SINCE MAY BE COMMITTED BY DECEIT, NOT FORCE
People v. Dalerio, 144 Cal.App.4th 775 (Nov. 7, 2006) (California Penal Code 207(e), kidnapping, deceit plus constant physical presence was sufficient to find that defendant had used "force" to kidnap victim, since victim was a minor and was therefore unable to give consent to being taken.).
SENTENCE - NONPENAL INSTITUTIONS - CREDITS - NEW CHARGES WHILE ON INSANITY COMMITMENT
People v. Callahan, 144 Cal.App.4th 678 (Nov. 6, 2006) (criminal defendants are not entitled to conduct credit for time spend in a state hospital). See also People v. Bruner (1995) 9 Cal.4th 1178, 1191 (prisoner not entitled to credit for presentence confinement unless he shows that the conduct which led to his conviction was the sole reason for his loss of liberty during the presentence period); People v. Buchhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 30, n.6 (no conduct credit for time spent in nonpenal institutions.)
FEDERAL PROSECUTION IMMIGRATION PROMISES UNLAWFUL WITHOUT DHS APPROVAL
Assistant United States Attorneys lack the authority to bind immigration authorities unless they obtain written assent from the immigration authorities and otherwise comply with 28 C.F.R. 0.197.
AGGRAVATED FELONY - FRAUD OFFENSE - LOSS TO THE VICTIM - RESTITUTION ORDER BASED ON CONDUCT NOT CHARGED, PROVEN, OR ADMITTED, AND WHICH WAS ISSUED BY THE CRIMINAL COURT UNDER A LOWER PREPONDERANCE STANDARD OF PROOF, WAS STANDING ALONE AN INSUFFICIENT BASI
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 restitution order for fraudulent use of other credit cards during the course of the conspiracy which had caused losses in excess of $37,000 to three financial institutions, issued pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3663, did not constitute an aggravated felony fraud offense, under INA 101(a)(43)(M)(i), 8 U.S.C.
RECORD OF CONVICTION - ADMISSIONS OF DEFENDANT - DEFENDANT DID NOT ADMIT AS TRUE FACTS ASSUMED TRUE BY COURT OF APPEALS FOR PURPOSES OF DECIDING SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE CLAIM IN CRIMINAL APPEAL
Morales v. Gonzales, 472 F.3d 689, 2007 WL 10033 (9th Cir. Jan.
RECORD OF CONVICTION - ADMISSIONS OF DEFENDANT - DEFENDANT DID NOT ADMIT AS TRUE FACTS ASSUMED TRUE BY COURT OF APPEALS FOR PURPOSES OF DECIDING SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE CLAIM IN CRIMINAL APPEAL
Morales v. Gonzales, 472 F.3d 689, 2007 WL 10033 (9th Cir. Jan.
RELIEF - ASYLUM - WITHHOLDING - PARTICULARLY SERIOUS CRIME - MISDEMEANOR CONVICTION OF COMMUNICATION WITH MINOR FOR IMMORAL PURPOSES CONSTITUTED CMT BUT WAS NOT FOUND TO BE PARTICULARLY SERIOUS CRIME
Morales v. Gonzales, 472 F.3d 689, 2007 WL 10033 (9th Cir. Jan. 3, 2007) (Washington conviction of communication with a minor for immoral purposes, in violation of Wash. Rev. Code 9.68A.090, constituted crime of moral turpitude, but was not found to be particularly serious crime to bar applications for asylum and withholding of deportation by Immigration Judge, so question was not presented on appeal or petition for review).
JUDICIAL REVIEW - PETITION FOR REVIEW - NONPRECEDENTIAL BIA DECISION NOT ACCORDED CHEVRON DEFERENCE
Rotimi v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 55, 2007 WL 10771 (2d Cir. Jan. 3, 2007) ("[N]onprecedential decision by a single member of the BIA should not be accorded Chevron deference, see Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), we remand petitioner's case to provide the BIA with the opportunity to construe the "lawfully resided continuously" provisions of 212(h) in a precedential opinion").
