Turijan v. Holder, 744 F.3d 617 (9th Cir. Mar. 10, 2014) (California conviction of felony false imprisonment, in violation of Penal Code 236, 237 [deprivation of liberty of another by violence or menace], was not a categorical crime of moral turpitude, because it does not require the intent to injure, actual injury, or a protected class of victim, and California courts have applied the statute to conduct that is not morally turpitudinous); following Castrijon"Garcia v. Holder, 704 F.3d 1205, 1218 (9th Cir.

Coronado v. Holder, ___ F.3d ___, 2014 WL 983621 (9th Cir. Mar. 14, 2014) (Health & S C 11377(a) is not categorically a conviction relating to a federally-listed controlled substance, for purposes of inadmissibility, because it includes at least one substance that is not on the federal list).

NOTE: The court found that Health & Safety Code punishes offenses involving "khat (Catha Edulis) and Chorionic gonadotropin (HGC), which are not listed in the federal schedules. See 21 C.F.R.

Under Descamps and Moncrieffe, arguably no California conviction of burglary, in violation of Penal Code 459, is a crime of moral turpitude, because the specific intended offense is not an "element" of burglary but merely a "means" of committing the offense, since the jury need not agree unanimously as to which specific offense was intended at the time of the entry.

Under Descamps and Moncrieffe, arguably no California conviction of burglary, in violation of Penal Code 459, is a crime of moral turpitude, because the specific intended offense is not an "element" of burglary but merely a "means" of committing the offense, since the jury need not agree unanimously as to which specific offense was intended at the time of the entry.

Under the analysis of Bautista v. Atty Gen. of the U.S., 744 F.3d 54, 59 (3d Cir. Feb. 28, 2014), the court concluded that offenses in the aggravated felony definition statute, INA 101(a)(43), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43), that are listed as described in a specific federal criminal statute, must be actually punishable under that statute to be considered aggravated felonies.

Convictions under California Health & Safety Code 11377 and 11378 do not categorically qualify as generic controlled substance offenses under settled case law.
Moreover, because the statute of conviction is not divisible in the sense used by the Supreme Court in Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013), the Court cannot proceed to examine the record of conviction under the modified categorical analysis of the statute.

Hinton v. Alabama, ___ U.S. ___, 134 S.Ct. 1081, 1089, 188 L.Ed.2d 1 (Feb. 24, 2014) (per curiam) (An attorney's ignorance of a point of law that is fundamental to his case combined with his failure to perform basic research on that point is a quintessential example of unreasonable performance under Strickland.).

In Hinton v. Alabama, ___ U.S. ___, 134 S.Ct. 1081, 1085, 188 L.Ed.2d 1 (Feb.

Matter of Abdelghany, 26 I. & N. Dec. 254 (BIA 2014) (a lawful permanent resident otherwise eligible for relief under former INA 212(c) is eligible without regard to whether the conviction resulted from a plea agreement or a trial, and without regard to whether he or she was removable or deportable under the law in effect when the conviction was entered).

United States v. Fish, ___ F.3d ___, 2014 WL 715785 (1st Cir. Feb. 26, 2014) (Massachusetts convictions for breaking and entering (daytime or nighttime) with intent to commit a felony, M.G.L. ch. 266, 16, 18, and assault and battery with dangerous weapon, under M.G.L. ch. 265, 15A, did not categorically constitute crimes of violence, under 18 U.S.C.

Bautista v. Atty Gen. of the U.S., 744 F.3d 54 (3d Cir. Feb. 28, 2014) (New York conviction of attempted arson in the third degree, in violation of Penal Law 110 and 150.10, did not categorically constitute a match for the elements of 18 U.S.C. 844(i), and is therefore not an aggravated felony under INA 101(a)(43)(E)(i), 8 U.S.C.