Hernandez-Mancilla
v. INS, 246 F.3d 1002 (7th Cir. Apr. 11, 2001) (Illinois conviction
for possession of a stolen motor vehicle, in violation of
625 ILCS § 5/4-103(a)(1) a "theft offense," under
INA § 101(a)(43)(G), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(G), and therefore
constituted an "aggravated felony" rendering noncitizen
deportable).

Nevarez-Martinez v. INS, 326 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. Apr. 16,
2003) (Arizona conviction of failure to return lost means
of transportation, in violation of Arizona Revised Statute
§ 13-1814(A)(4), did not constitute a theft offense aggravated
felony, under INA § 101(a)(43)(G), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(G),
since the statute did not require intent to deprive the owner
of the property) (alternative holding).

Huerta-Guevara
v. Ashcroft, 321 F.3d 883 (9th Cir. Mar. 4, 2003) (Arizona
conviction of possession of a stolen vehicle, in violation
of A.R.S. § 13-1802, did not fall within the generic definition
of "theft offense" necessary to constitute an aggravated
felony under INA § 101(a)(43)(G), 8 U.S.C.

United States v. Vasquez-Flores, 265
F.3d 1122 (10th Cir. Sept. 13, 2001), cert. denied, 122 S.Ct.
1180 (2002) (Utah conviction for attempting to knowingly receive
or transfer a stolen motor vehicle, in violation of U.C.A.
1953 § 41-1a-1316, was an "aggravated felony" under
INA § 101(a)(43)(G), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(G) for enhancement
purposes under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(2) of an illegal re-entry
sentence).

Matter of Bahta, 22 I. & N.
Dec. 1381 (BIA Oct. 4, 2000) (Nevada conviction for attempted
possession of stolen property, in violation of Nevada Revised
Statutes § 193.330 and 205.275, is a conviction for an attempted
"theft offense (including receipt of stolen property),"
and therefore an aggravated felony, within the meaning of
sections INA § 101(a)(43)(G) and (U), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(G)
and (U)).

Alfarache v. Cravener, 203 F.3d 381, 384 (5th Cir.
Feb. 22, 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 813 (2000) (federal
conviction of conspiracy to participate in a racketeering
enterprise in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), was an "aggravated
felony" under INA § 101(a)(43)(J), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(J),
for immigration purposes).

Valansi v. Ashcroft, 203 F.3d
203 (3d Cir. Feb. 1, 2000) (federal conviction of misapplication
of bank funds, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 656, is not categorically
an offense involving "deceit" for purposes of INA
§ 101(a)(43)(M)(i) (fraud or deceit)).

Pena-Rosario v. Reno, 83 F.Supp.2d
349, 366 n.12 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 8, 2000) (federal conviction
for falsely making "document prescribed by statute or
regulation as evidence of authorized stay or employment in
the United States," in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a),
constituted an "aggravated felony" within meaning
of INA § 101(a)(43)(P), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(P), for purposes
of deportation).

Berhe v. Gonzales,
___ F.3d ___, 2006 WL 2729689 (1st Cir. Sept. 26, 2006) (Massachusetts
1996 conviction of misdemeanor simple possession of crack
cocaine under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 94C, § 34, and Massachusetts
2003 misdemeanor conviction of simple possession of crack
cocaine, were not aggravated felony drug trafficking convictions
under INA § 101(a)(43)(B), 8 U.S.C.

Berhe v. Gonzales, ___ F.3d ___, 2006 WL 2729689
(1st Cir. Sept. 26, 2006) (Massachusetts conviction of misdemeanor
possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, in violation
of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 94C, § 32C(a), constituted an
aggravated felony drug trafficking conviction under INA §
101(a)(43)(B), 8 U.S.C.