Matter of V-X-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 147 (BIA 2013) (an individual whose criminal prosecution was adjudicated through Michigans youthful trainee designation, Mich. Comp. Laws 762.11, was convicted for immigration purposes, even though adjudication of guilt was deferred, since the designation resulted from a criminal adjudication; distinguishing the Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act, 18 U.S.C. 5031-5042); see Uritsky v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 728 (6th Cir. 2005).
CD4:7.23, 12.11;CMT3:2.9;AF:3.41;SH:4.10

FIREARMS " RELATING TO LANGUAGE INCLUDES AMMUNITION
Matter of Oppedisano, 26 I&N Dec.

United States v. Mensah, 737 F.3d 789 (1st Cir. Dec. 16, 2013) (affirming conviction for unlawful procurement of naturalization, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1425(a), where defendant was under oath when he signed naturalization application, and the government presented sufficient evidence to show that defendant had made a false statement in his naturalization application).

Soto v. Holder, 736 F.3d 1009 (1st Cir. Dec. 3, 2013) (clock for purposes of stop-time rule for cancellation of removal ended on date NTA was served on the noncitizen, even though it was not served on the Immigration Court until two years later).

Pierre v. Holder, 738 F.3d 39 (2d Cir. Dec. 10, 2013) (petitioner was not entitled to automatic derivative citizenship under 8 U.S.C. 1432(a) based on his father's naturalization because his parents were never married and thus there could be no "legal separation" as required under the statute).

United States v. Montes-Flores, 736 F.3d 357 (4th Cir. Nov.

Gomez-Lopez v. Ashcroft, 393 F.3d , 886 (9th Cir. 2005) (good moral character statutory bar covers confinement in any facility"whether federal, state, or local"as a result of conviction, for the requisite period of time, falls within the meaning of [8 U.S.C.] 1101(f)(7).") (emphasis added).

NOTE: If the client received credit for time served prior to conviction, and would not otherwise be subject to the 1101(f)(7), you should preserve the argument that Arreguin-Moreno v. Mukasey, 511 F. 3d 1229 (9th Cir. 2008), and Matter of Valdovinos, 18 I&N Dec. 343 (BIA 1982), were wrongly decided.

Cuevas v. Holder, 737 F.3d 972, 975 (5th Cir. Dec. 10, 2013) (determination of inadmissibility, under INA 212(a)(2)(C), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)(C), must be based on reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence, but does not require a conviction); compare Westover v. Reno, 202 F.3d 475, 480 n.6 (1st Cir.2000) (speculating in dictum that probable cause to believe that an alien was growing marijuana could have rendered the alien removable under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)(C)); In re U"H", 23 I. & N. Dec.

Ortega v. ICE, 737 F.3d 435 (6th Cir. Dec. 10, 2013) (ICE officer has qualified immunity against suit by U.S. Citizen, since U.S. Citizen had no clearly established liberty interest in home confinement at the time he was transferred to a local jail as a result of a detainer).

United States v. Lara-Unzueta, 735 F.3d 954, 959 (7th Cir. Nov. 19, 2013) (district judge was not disqualified from ruling on defendants motion to dismiss indictment in illegal reentry case on the grounds that he had served as served as District Counsel for the INS in Chicago during 1997"1998, when the INS was the agency responsible for the defendants deportation proceeding, because he has not served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, [or] adviser ...

Garcia-Gonzalez v. Holder, 737 F.3d 498 (8th Cir. Dec. 9, 2013) (by agreeing in his plea agreement that the Government could have proved the factual basis for his racketeering conviction beyond a reasonable doubt, the noncitizen admitted to each of the elements of a violation of 21 U.S.C. 846, which constituted an offense related to a controlled substance; he was therefore inadmissible under INA 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II)).