Zhong v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 461 F.3d 101 (2d Cir. Aug. 8, 2006) ("We are persuaded, both on the language of 1252(d)(1) and on these authorities, that the exhaustion of 'all administrative remedies available to [an] alien as of right' under 8 U.S.C. 1252(d)(1) does not require - as a statutory matter - that a petitioner for relief from removal raise to the BIA each issue presented in his or her petition for judicial review. Therefore, in the context of 8 U.S.C.

United States v. Espinoza-Cano, __ F.3d __, 2006 WL 2255686 (9th Cir. Aug. 8, 2006) (California conviction for grand theft, in violation of Penal Code 487(a), is an aggravated felony theft offense where the police report, incorporated into the criminal complaint by the court, upon stipulation of the parties and admission of the defendant in open court that the facts in the police report constituted the factual basis underlying the guilty plea, indicated that the theft involved personal property, rather than services).

United States v. Espinoza-Cano, __ F.3d __, 2006 WL 2255686 (9th Cir. Aug. 8, 2006) (California conviction for grand theft, in violation of Penal Code 487(a), is an aggravated felony theft offense where the police report, incorporated into the criminal complaint by the court, upon stipulation of the parties and admission of the defendant in open court that the facts in the police report constituted the factual basis underlying the guilty plea, indicated that the theft involved personal property, rather than services).

Maldonado-Galindo v. Gonzalez, 456 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. Aug. 3, 2006) (INA 240A(c)(6) bar to cancellation of removal to those who have already received waivers under INA 212(c) is not impermissibly retroactive).

Rumierz v. Gonzales, ___ F.3d ___, 2006 WL 2169431 (1st Cir. Aug. 3, 2006) (noncitizen bears burden of showing conviction was vacated on a basis of legal invalidity where the order of removal has already become final, and the noncitizen is making a late motion to reopen/reconsider in light of the new evidence that the conviction has been vacated).
http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/1st/051895.html

Rumierz v. Gonzales, ___ F.3d ___, 2006 WL 2169431 (1st Cir. Aug. 3, 2006) (noncitizen bears burden of showing conviction was vacated on a basis of legal invalidity where the order of removal has already become final, and the noncitizen is making a late motion to reopen/reconsider in light of the new evidence that the conviction has been vacated).
http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/1st/051895.html

Bobb v. Atty Gen. of the United States, __ F.3d __ (9th Cir. Aug. 3, 2006) (federal conviction of check forgery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 510(a)(2), involving a check in an amount over $10,000 is an aggravated felony fraud offense under INA 101(a)(43)(M)(i) for immigration purposes).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/3rd/052891p.pdf

Bobb v. Atty Gen. of the United States, __ F.3d __ (9th Cir. Aug. 3, 2006) (DHS was not required to charge federal conviction of check forgery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 510(a)(2), as an aggravated felony "forgery" offense under INA 101(a)(43)(R), since the various aggravated felony definitions are not necessarily mutually exclusive), but see, Ki Se Lee v. Ashcroft, 368 G.4f 218 (3d Cir.

Bobb v. Atty Gen. of the United States, __ F.3d __ (9th Cir. Aug. 3, 2006) (the DHS is not required to charge noncitizens under the aggravated felony category that best describes the offense of conviction; DHS can charge under any category as long as the offense falls within that category), but see Nugent v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 162 (3d Cir. 2004) [offense that is both fraud and theft must meet both sentence and loss requirements].
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/3rd/052891p.pdf

Bobb v. Atty Gen. of the United States, __ F.3d __ (9th Cir. Aug. 3, 2006) (the holding of Nugent v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 162 (3d Cir. 2004) [offense that is both fraud and theft must meet both sentence and loss requirements], does not apply to fraud/forgery combinations, since [unlike "a theft offense"] "an offense related to . . . forgery" is not a subclass of "an offense that involves fraud," but rather a separate [though intersecting] universal class).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/3rd/052891p.pdf