De Araujo v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 146, 150 (1st Cir. Aug. 11, 2006) (no due process violation where BIA denied request to grant sua sponte motion on the basis of recently vacated convictions, allowing noncitizen to apply for relief, where BIA denied motion on the basis that it would deny any application for relief as a matter of discretion because noncitizen, "had previously been convicted of four criminal offenses, and while three of these had been vacated, none had been vacated because De Araujo was not guilty of the crimes committed.")

As reported in the August 10, 2006 Litigation Clearinghouse Newsletter, USCIS headquarters issued a memo instructing field officers to deny I-212s in any case where the person is inadmissible for having been deported (INA 212(a)(9)(C)(I)(i)(II)) and ten years have not elapsed since the applicants last departure from the United States. See http://www.ailf.org/lac/litclearinghouse/litclr_newsletter_81006.pdf. USCIS memo conflicts directly with the Ninth Circuit decision Perez-Gonzalez v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 783 (9th Cir. 2004).

Alberni v. McDaniel, __ F.3d __ (9th Cir. Aug. 9, 2006) (case remanded to determine whether defendant's right to conflict-free counsel was violated by trial counsel's cross-examination of a prosecution witness who had been counsels client).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0515570p.pdf

Ferry v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 1117 (10th Cir. Aug. 8, 2006) (noncitizen who overstays authorized time under Visa Waiver Program and files for adjustment of status after he has overstayed, but before issuance of a removal order, has waived right to contest subsequent removal order through renewed application for adjustment of status, or to otherwise seek review of the previously filed adjustment of status).

United States v. Cordova-Arevalo, 456 F.3d 1229 (10th Cir. Aug. 8, 2006) (Colorado conviction for assault in the third degree, in violation of Colo.Rev.Stat. 18-3-204, although labeled by the State as a misdemeanor, is a felony for illegal re-entry sentencing purposes since the maximum possible punishment for the offense is 18 months).

United States v. Zuniga-Guerrero, __ F.3d __ (6th Cir. Aug. 23, 2006) (AEDPA version of INA 212(c) not impermissibly retroactive when applied to a noncitizen to committed offense prior to AEDPA, but pleaded guilty after AEDPA become effective).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/6th/056457p.pdf

Korsunskiy v. Gonzales, 461 F.3d 847 (7th Cir. Aug. 23, 2006) (even pro-se petitioners must have raised issues in petition for review in immigration court).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/7th/054120p.pdf

AGGRAVATED FELONY - CONSPIRACY - BANK FRAUD
Conteh v. Gonzales, __ F.3d __ (1st Cir. Aug. 22, 2006) (Federal conviction for conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. 371, where the underlying offense was a violation of 18 U.S.C. 1344 [bank fraud] with a loss in excess of $10,000, is an aggravated felony fraud offense for immigration purposes).
http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/1st/051282.html

Conteh v. Gonzales, __ F.3d __ (1st Cir. Aug. 22, 2006) (Federal conviction for conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. 371, where the underlying offense was a violation of 18 U.S.C. 1344 [bank fraud] with a loss in excess of $10,000, is an aggravated felony fraud offense for immigration purposes).
http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/1st/051282.html

Conteh v. Gonzales, __ F.3d __ (1st Cir. Aug. 22, 2006) (Federal conviction for conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. 371, where the underlying offense was a violation of 18 U.S.C. 513(a) [possession of counterfeit security] with a loss in excess of $10,000, is an aggravated felony fraud offense for immigration purposes).
http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/1st/051282.html