Moreover, even when a respondent has a strong claim for relief a respondent has no guarantee that she or he will remain eligible or that a fact finder will grant her or his request for relief. See, e.g., Matter of Pineda, Int. Dec. 3325 (BIA 1997) (applying amendment to 212(h) to applicant who was eligible when request was filed); Matter of Yeung, Int. Dec. 3297 (BIA 1996) (applying amendment to 212(h) waiver to waiver applicant); Matter of Soriano, Int. Dec. 3289 (A.G. 1997) (applying amendment to 212(c) to applicant who was eligible when he first applied).

United States v. Resendiz-Ponce, ___ U.S. ___ (Jan. 9, 2007) (Ninth Circuit's decision reversing respondent's conviction for illegally attempting to reenter the United States is reversed where the indictment at issue was not defective for failure to omit an element, and consequently, the Supreme Court did not need to answer the question of whether the omission of an element of a criminal offense from a federal indictment can constitute harmless error).
http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/us/000/05998.html

Payne-Barahona v. Gonzales, 474 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. Jan. 10, 2007) (removal of noncitizen does not violate 5th Amendment rights of noncitizens 3 United States Citizen children), following Gallanosa v. United States, 785 F.2d 116, 120 (4th Cir.1986); Gonzalez-Cuevas v. INS, 515 F.2d 1222, 1224 (5th Cir.1975); Ayala-Flores v. INS, 662 F.2d 444, 445 (6th Cir.1981); Cervantes v. INS, 510 F.2d 89, 92 (10th Cir.1975); Delgado v. INS, 637 F.2d 762, 764 (10th Cir.1980).

Valere v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 757 (7th Cir. Jan. 11, 2007)(petition for review denied where there is no statutory counterpart for petitioner's crime of indecent assault on a child, so he was not similarly situated to an inadmissible, returning alien who is eligible to apply for relief under former INA 212(c), thus there is no violation of equal protection).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/7th/052968p.pdf

Becker v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 1000 (9th Cir. Jan. 10, 2007) ("A conviction for an aggravated felony precludes eligibility even absent a charge and finding of removability on that ground. Compare INA 240A(a)(3)(an alien "convicted of any felony" is not eligible) with Matter of Fortiz-Zelaya, 21 I & N Dec. 1199 (BIA 1998) (holding that "is deportable" for the purposes of 212(c) eligibility requires a charge and finding of deportability under the relevant deportation ground) and Matter of Ching 12 I & N Dec. 710 (BIA 1968) (same for suspension of deportation).").

Becker v. Gonzales, ___ F.3d ___ (9th Cir. Jan. 10, 2007) ("This is because "the grant of section 212(c) relief merely waives the finding of deportability rather than the basis of the deportability itself. Therefore, the crimes alleged to be grounds for deportability do not disappear from the alien's record for immigration purposes." Matter of Balderas, 20 I & N Dec. 389, 391 (BIA 1991); see Molina-Amezcua v.

The REAL ID Act of 2005 purported to eliminate habeas corpus jurisdiction over final orders of removal, deportation, and exclusion and consolidate such review in the court of appeals. The REAL ID Act, however, did not affect the ongoing availability of habeas corpus to challenge the length or conditions of immigration detention. Since the REAL ID Acts enactment on May 11, 2005, the courts of appeals have uniformly upheld the right to file a habeas corpus petition to challenge the lawfulness of detention. Hernandez v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 42, 42 (1st Cir. 2005); DeBarreto v. INS, 427 F. Supp.

The REAL ID Act of 2005 purported to eliminate habeas corpus jurisdiction over final orders of removal, deportation, and exclusion and consolidate such review in the court of appeals. The REAL ID Act, however, did not affect the ongoing availability of habeas corpus to challenge the length or conditions of immigration detention. Since the REAL ID Acts enactment on May 11, 2005, the courts of appeals have uniformly upheld the right to file a habeas corpus petition to challenge the lawfulness of detention. Hernandez v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 42, 42 (1st Cir. 2005); DeBarreto v. INS, 427 F. Supp.

Singh v. Gonzales, 451 F.3d 400 (6th Cir. 2006) (any fraud committed by a third party could not be imputed to a minor).

If a noncitizen receives a 212(c) waiver of a conviction for sale of cocaine, that will not necessarily protect the noncitizen from inadmissibility for reason to believe he was an illicit trafficker in a controlled substance. INA 212(a)(2)(C)(i). A returning LPR who has received a grant of cancellation of removal for LPRs is not seeking admission. INA 101(a)(13)(C). Therefore, that person is not barred from reentering the United States, even though s/he may be inadmissible for reason to believe under INA 212(a)(2)(C)(i). Thanks to Lynn Marcus.