Larin-Ulloa v. Gonzales, __ F.3d __, 2006 WL 2441387 (5th Cir. Aug. 24, 2006) (sentencing factor notation in state court journal entry form indicating that offense was committed with a firearm could not be used under modified categorical approach to support BIA determination that noncitizen had pleaded guilty to portion of divisible statute that involved use of a deadly weapon, since sentencing factors frequently refer to facts neither alleged nor admitted in court).

Larin-Ulloa v. Gonzales, __ F.3d __, 2006 WL 2441387 (5th Cir. Aug. 24, 2006) (Kansas courts nunc pro tunc correction of internally inconsistent criminal judgment was a proper use of nunc pro tunc under Kansas law; as a correction of record made to properly reflect the original judgement, the nunc pro tunc judgment was properly considered by the BIA, and such consideration does not contradict Renteria-Gonzalez v. INS, 322 F.3d 804 (5th Cir. 2002) rule that vacated conviction remains a conviction for immigration purposes).

Jarad v. Gozales, 461 F.3d 867 (7th Cir. Aug. 24, 2006) (Immigration Judge did not commit legal error in making discretionary decision to deny INA 245(i) adjustment to noncitizen who failed to depart following deportation proceedings 13 years earlier; court lacks jurisdiction to review discretionary denial of INA 245(i) adjustment).

Jarad v. Gozales, __ F.3d __ (7th Cir. Aug. 24, 2006) (Immigration Judge did not commit legal error in making discretionary decision to deny INA 245(i) adjustment to noncitizen who failed to depart following deportation proceedings 13 years earlier; court lacks jurisdiction to review discretionary denial of INA 245(i) adjustment).

Jarad v. Gozales, 461 F.3d 867 (7th Cir. Aug. 24, 2006) (Immigration Judge did not commit legal error in making discretionary decision to deny INA 245(i) adjustment to noncitizen who failed to depart following deportation proceedings 13 years earlier; court lacks jurisdiction to review discretionary denial of INA 245(i) adjustment).

"In 2006, over 500 pieces of legislation concerning immigrants have been introduced in state legislatures around the country. While legislation covered a wide variety of topics, many states focused on employment, trafficking, public benefits, education, identification, voting rights and procedures, trafficking, law enforcement, and legal services. Thus far, at least 57 bills have been enacted in 2006, a pace that exceeds that of 2005.

Navarro-Lopez v Gonzales, 455 F.3d 1055 (9th Cir. 2006), opinion vacated on grant of rehearing en banc (original decision held California conviction of accessory after the fact, in violation of Penal Code 32, was a CMT and was cited by BIA in Matter of Robles, 24 I. & N. Dec. 22 (BIA 2006)(federal conviction of misprision of a felony, in violation of 18 USC 4, was a CMT)

Ochoa-Amaya v. Gonzales, ___ F.3d ___, 2007 WL 851340 (9th Cir. Dec. 29, 2006) (adjustment of status properly denied where BIA correctly interpreted Child Status Protection Act in finding petitioner not to qualify as a child under the CSPA).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0574693p.pdf

Salviejo-Fernandez v. Gonzales, ___ F.3d ___ (9th Cir. Jul. 31, 2006) (California conviction of maintaining a place to store drugs for sale, in violation of Health & Safety Code 11366, constitutes a drug trafficking aggravated felony under INA 101(a)(43)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(B), for immigration purposes).



Note: The majority holds that a violation of California Heath & Safety Code 11366 is a categorical match for 21 U.S.C. 856 (i.e., has the exact same elements and covers the same range of offenses), and is thus categorically an aggravated felony drug offense.

Salviejo-Fernandez v. Gonzales, 455 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. Jul. 31, 2006) (rejecting due process argument regarding notice, the Ninth Circuit found that a criminal conviction not charged in the NTA could be used to find that a noncitizen was ineligible for relief; in the context of cancellation of removal the IJ accepted proof of a criminal conviction not charged in the NTA to find noncitizen was ineligible for cancellation of removal as an alien convicted of an aggravated felony), following Brown v. Ashcroft, 360 F.3d 346, 353 (2d Cir. 2004); Aalund v. Marshall, 461 F.2d 710, 712-713 (5th Cir.