United States v. Allen, 282 F.3d 339, 342-343 (5th Cir. 2002) (courts may consider charging papers and jury instructions to determine whether a prior offense qualifies as a "serious drug offense" for purposes of 18 U.S.C.A 924(e)(2)(A) [Armed Career Criminal Act]).

United States v. Allen, 282 F.3d 339, 342-343 (5th Cir. 2002) (courts may consider charging papers and jury instructions to determine whether a prior offense qualifies as a "serious drug offense" for purposes of 18 U.S.C.A 924(e)(2)(A) [Armed Career Criminal Act]).

Galeana-Mendoza v. Gonzales, 465 F.3d 1054, 2006 WL 2846379 (9th Cir. Oct. 6, 2006) (California convictions of simple battery on the mother of defendant's child, in violation of Penal Code 243(e)(1), were not categorically crimes of moral turpitude since the least touching was sufficient to violate the statute, and the domestic relationship, standing alone, was insufficient to establish moral turpitude).

Petrov v. Gonzales, 464 F.3d 800, 2006 WL 2846451 (7th Cir. Oct. 6, 2006) (federal conviction of conspiracy to bribe federal officials to provide bogus "green cards" as part of an immigration fraud, for which he received more than $10,000, constituted a fraud offense aggravated felony, under INA 101(a)(43)(M)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(M)(i), which deprived the court of appeals of jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(C) to consider whether the conviction constituted a particularly serious crime barring political asylum and withholding of deportation).

State v. Green, ___ Fla. ___ (Oct. 26, 2006) (a Florida criminal "defendant seeking to withdraw a plea because the trial court did not advise the defendant of the possibility of deportation as part of the plea colloquy must file a rule 3.850 motion within two years after the judgment and sentence become final. The motion must allege, in addition to the lack of a deportation warning, that the defendant would not have entered the plea if properly advised and that under current law the plea does render the defendant subject to being removed from the country at some point in the future.

Afeta v. Gonzales, 467 F.3d 402 (4th Cir. Oct. 26, 2006) (rejecting derivative citizenship claim that Ethiopian national automatically became a citizen as a minor when his mother was naturalized; "separation agreement" obtained when parents separated was not a "formal judicial document" and therefore did not suffice to show legal separation prior to divorce). See also, Matter of H, 3 I. & N. Dec. 742 (BIA 1949); Brissett v. Ashcroft, 363 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2004) (judicial order requiring payment of child support sufficient); Simpson v. T.D. Williamson, Inc., 414 F.3d 1203 (10th Cir. 2005).

Smith v. Gonzales, ___ F.3d ___ (5th Cir. Oct. 24, 2006) (second state misdemeanor conviction for possession of marijuana did not qualify as an "aggravated felony" for immigration purposes because second possession only becomes a felony under federal law upon conviction of a second offense after conviction of a prior simple possession; in this case, there was no effective prior conviction under 21 U.S.C. 844(a) because the first conviction was not yet final).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/5th/0660020cv0p.pdf

Smith v. Gonzales, ___ F.3d ___, 2006 WL 3012856 (5th Cir. Oct. 24, 2006) (for purposes of the Controlled Substances Act, a conviction does not become final until time for direct appeal and time for discretionary review have elapsed).



NOTE: This case can be cited to support the position that a second controlled substances offense may be expunged under Lujan in the Ninth Circuit as long as the first conviction had not become final by the time of the second conviction.

Smith v. Gonzales, ___ F.3d ___, 2006 WL 3012856 (5th Cir. Oct. 24, 2006) (for purposes of the Controlled Substances Act, a conviction does not become final until time for direct appeal and time for discretionary review have elapsed).



NOTE: This case can be cited to support the position that a second controlled substances offense may be expunged under Lujan in the Ninth Circuit as long as the first conviction had not become final by the time of the second conviction.

The doctrine of collateral estoppel applies in immigration proceedings. Hamdan v. Gonzales, 425 F3d 1051 (7th Cir. 2004); Palciauskas v. INS, 939 F.2d 963 (7th Cir. 1991).