Matter of O'Cealleagh, 23 I. & N. Dec. 976 (BIA 2006) (Irish conviction for aiding and abetting murder is a crime of moral turpitude).



Note: the BIA in this case noted, but did not address, issue that Irish aiding and abetting does not necessarily meet US standards of aiding and abetting. The BIA did not address whether "aiding and abetting" a CMT could ever trigger inadmissibility under INA 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I), since that statue lists "attempt" and "conspiracy," but not "aiding and abetting."

Obale v. Attorney General, 453 F.3d 151 (3d Cir. 2006) (courts may stay voluntary departure period).

Perez v. United States, ___ F.Supp. ___, ___ (D.N.Y. 2006) ("[B]ecause Petitioner has established that he is a United States citizen, it is a constitutional violation to convict him for reentering the United States. As a result, the Court finds that Petitioners conviction and, in turn, his sentence should be vacated pursuant to 28
U.S.C. 2255.")

For more information about stays of voluntary departure during court of appeals review and an overview of the case law in other courts, see AILFs Practice Advisory, Protecting Voluntary Departure Period During Court of Appeals Review (October 25, 2005) available at http://www.ailf.org/lac/lac_pa_chrono.shtml.

Reyez-Melendez v. INS, 342 F.3d 1001 (9th Cir. 2003) (bias of immigration judge her from acting as a neutral fact-finder and prevented her from considering and evaluating evidence relevant to establishing extreme hardship).

Matter of Romalez, 23 I&N Dec.

Matter of Romalez, 23 I&N Dec.

8 U.S.C. 1252(d)(1) (stating that a court may review a final order of removal only if the alien has exhausted all administrative remedies)



Sanchez-Cruz v. INS, 255 F.3d 775, 779-80 (9th Cir. 2001) (although petitioner's allegation of IJ bias presented a colorable due process claim, the claim was precluded by failure to. present it to the BIA).

Herrera-Inirio v. Gonzales, 208 F.3d 299 (1st Cir.2000) (applying Pickering analysis to vacated convictions, although decision pre-dates Pickering; subsequent dismissal of charges, based solely on rehabilitative goals does not vitiate that original admission).

Miller v. INS, 762 F.2d 21 (3d Cir. 1985) (grant of 212(h) waiver does not eliminate the crime for purposes of showing good moral character).