There is a question whether a CMT conviction, for which a JRAD was validly obtained before November 29, 1990, can trigger deportation for multiple CMT convictions when combined with a later (or earlier) second CMT. Immigration counsel could argue that under the former statute, still enforced, deportation cannot be based on a CMT for which a JRAD was granted. The government can argue that the CMT for which a JRAD was granted forms one CMT of a two-CMT deportation ground.

Heaven v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 167 (5th Cir. Dec. 14, 2006) (retroactive application of stop-time rule governing accrual of continuous presence requirement for cancellation of removal was proper in removal proceeding begun after effective date of IIRAIRA).

Nearly 90,000 immigrants a year are deported for criminal convictions. See DHS, Immigration Enforcement Actions: 2005, at http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/yearbook/2005/Enforcement_....

De La Paz Sanchez v. Gonzales, ___ F.3d ___ (5th Cir. Dec. 12, 2006) (per curiam) (Texas conviction of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle offense constitutes a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. 16(b) for removal purposes), following United States v. Galvan-Rodriguez, 169 F.3d 217, 219 (5th Cir. 1999); see In re Brieva-Perez, 23 I. & N. Dec. 766, 767-70 (BIA 2005) (Texas UUMV conviction was a crime of violence under 16(b) and therefore an aggravated felony); cf. United States v.

De La Paz Sanchez v. Gonzales, ___ F.3d ___ (5th Cir. Dec. 12, 2006) (former INA 212(c) relief not available to waive aggravated felony crime of violence, which has no comparable ground of excludability), following Matter of Brieva-Perez, 23 I. & N. Dec. 766, 771-773 (BIA 2005).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/5th/0560973cv0p.pdf

Mansour v. Gonzales, ___ F.3d ___2006 WL 3627187 (6th Cir. Dec. 14, 2006) (noncitizen who was paroled into the United States to stand trial in a criminal case did not make a lawful admission, for purposes of becoming eligible to apply for INA 212(c) relief or making a motion to reopen removal proceedings), citing Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 536 (9th Cir.2004) (holding that an alien paroled into the United States pending completion of exclusion proceedings did not lawfully enter the United States and was therefore ineligible for withholding of deportation).

United States v. Juvenile Male, 470 F.3d 939 (9th Cir. Dec. 14, 2006) (Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act applies to a juvenile's re-sentencing after revocation of probation, as well as the initial sentencing, so district court committed plain error by re-sentencing the juvenile under the adult sentencing scheme).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0630270p.pdf

United States v. Wilson, 471 F.3d 111 (2d Cir. Dec. 7, 2006) (a petitioner who asserts that he is eligible for INA 212(c) relief from immigration consequences of a conviction after jury trial, under Restrepo v. McElroy, 369 F.3d 627 (2d Cir. 2004), is required to make an individualized showing of reliance on eligibility for 212(c) relief).

Kaganovich v. Gonzales, ___ F.3d ___, 2006 WL 3623131 (9th Cir. Dec. 12, 2006) (a noncitizen who arrives in the United States as a refugee may be removed even if their refugee status has never been terminated pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1157(c)(4)).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0470625p.pdf

Makadji v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 450 (2d Cir. Dec. 5, 2006) (stop-time rule for suspension of deportation, providing that period of continuous residence ended upon the commission of certain offenses, was triggered by petitioner's criminal conviction, even through that offense occurred prior to enactment of the 1996 amendments to the INA).