Nath v. Gonzales, ___ F.3d ___, 2006 WL 3110424 (9th Cir. Nov.

California Health & Safety Code 11379(a) prohibits a number of different offenses, including transportation of a controlled substance. This offense does not have as an element any requirement that the transportation be for purposes of sale, and therefore encompasses transportation for personal use. Transportation for personal use is included within the definition of "nonviolent drug possession offense," for which charge a defendant is eligible for Prop. 36 no drug treatment and for which imposition of any custodial sentence is initially prohibited. California Penal Code 1210(a).

Persons born in Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands are United States Citizens. There are no more U.S. trust territories. The last one, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands (TTPI), evolved (some might say "devolved") into three "Freely Associated States" of the United States: the Republic of Belau (Palau), the Federated States of Micronesia (Yap, Chuuk/Truk, Pohnpei/Ponape, and Kosrae), and the Republic of the Marshall Islands (home to the Kwajelin missile range and Bikini Atoll) in the late 1970s or early 1980s.

Congress did not state in the new sex offender registration bar that state failure to register offenses that are analogous (or coextensive) with the federal offense also trigger deportation or other adverse immigration consequences. It specified that only convictions "under 18 USC 2250" would do so. Compare the aggravated felony definition, that expressly states analogous state convictions are included in the aggravated felony definition. The controlled substances deportation ground explicitly includes violations of "any law or regulation of a State . . . ." INA 237(a)(2)(B)(i).

"Arriving aliens" in removal proceedings are now eligible to apply for adjustment with USCIS under the interim rule. 71 Fed. Reg. 27585 (May 12, 2006). The interim rule, effective on May 12, 2006, deleted the absolute bar on an "arriving alien's" ability to adjust status in removal proceedings. Prior to the issuance of the interim rule, several courts of appeals had struck down the former regulation barring adjustment, finding that it violated the statute.

Courts of appeals have petition for review jurisdiction to review an Immigration Judges denial of a continuance in removal proceedings. Abu-Khaliel v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 627 (6th Cir. 2006)(court of appeals has petition for review jurisdiction over question of error in denying continuance in removal proceedings); Subhan v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 591 (7th Cir. 2004) (court of appeals has jurisdiction to review denial of continuance; unapproved labor certification alone does not provide a sufficient basis for denying a continuance); Zafar v. Attorney General, 461 F.3d 1357 (11th Cir.

Eleventh Circuit Finds IJ Has Jurisdiction Over In Absentia Motion to Reopen Filed From Outside of the U.S. Contreras-Rodriguez v. U.S. Attorney General. 462 F.3d 1314 (11th Cir. 2006). Petitioner was ordered removed in absentia and removed from the United States. He filed a motion to reopen to rescind the in absentia order based on lack of notice. The IJ denied the motion, concluding that the immigration court lacked jurisdiction because petitioner was outside of the United States. The BIA affirmed the dismissal. The Eleventh Circuit found that petitioners motion was governed by 8 C.F.R.

The main obstacle to obtaining a client's release from custody of an ICE detainer is lack of understanding about what a detainer is and about how quickly (or not) a person can be removed. The criminal bondsman will not write a criminal bond if they think the person is going to be immediately deported. The court and the bondsman often think that an immigration detainer means that the client will be immediately deported. Counsel has to educate them as to why that is not the case. The ICE detainer does nothing to prevent the jail from releasing the client.

Fernandez-Ruiz v. Gonzales, ___ F.3d ___ (9th Cir. October 26, 2006)(en banc) (Arizona conviction of domestic violence assault, in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stats. 13-1203(A)(1), 13-601 ["[i]ntentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causing any physical injury to another"], did not constitute a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. 16(a), and is therefore not a domestic violence conviction, within the meaning of INA 237(a)(2)(E)(i), 8 U.S.C.

Fernandez-Ruiz v. Gonzales, ___ F.3d ___ (9th Cir. October 26, 2006)(en banc) (Arizona conviction of domestic violence assault, in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stats. 13-1203(A)(1), 13-601 ["[i]ntentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causing any physical injury to another"], did not constitute a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. 16(a), and is therefore not a domestic violence conviction, within the meaning of INA 237(a)(2)(E)(i), 8 U.S.C.