Matter of Rowe, 23 I. & N. Dec. 962 (BIA 2006) (where a noncitizen was born out of wedlock and paternity was never established under the law of the country in which his parents resided, his paternity has not been established by legitimation, so he is not ineligible to obtain derivative citizenship under former INA 321(a)(3), 8 U.S.C. 1432(a)(3)). http://www.usdoj.gov/eoir/vll/intdec/vol23/3536.pdf

The additional bars to a waiver of inadmissibility under INA 212(h), added by IIRAIRA 348, provide: "[n]o waiver shall be granted under this subsection in the case of an alien who has previously been admitted to the United States as an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence if either since the date of such admission the alien has been convicted of an aggravated felony or the alien has not lawfully resided continuously in the United States for a period of not less than 7 years immediately preceding the date of initiation of proceedings to remove the alien from the United States.

In determining whether a conviction constitutes a "particularly serious crime" ("PSC") sufficient to disqualify a noncitizen from asylum or withholding of removal, there are two basic tests. First, if the offense is considered an aggravated felony, the noncitizen is disqualified for asylum, and is disqualified from withholding if the sentence imposed is for five years or more. INA 208(b)(2)(A); 241(b)(3)(B).

United States v. Jose D.L., __ F.3d __ (9th Cir. Jun. 30, 2006) (district court finding that defendant was a juvenile delinquent for drug-related offenses reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings as to "harmless error" analysis where government officials committed multiple violations of the Juvenile Delinquency Act (JDA)). http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0550597p.pdf

Sanchez-LLamas v. Oregon, 548 U.S. __ (Jun. 28, 2006) (even assuming that the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations creates judicially enforceable rights, suppression is not an appropriate remedy for a violation of Article 36 of the Convention, requiring consulate notification of a noncitizen is placed in criminal proceedings, and a state may apply its regular rules of procedural default to Article 36 claims).
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/4-10566.html

Cisneros-Perez v. Gonzales, ___ F.3d ___, 2006 WL 1728068 (9th Cir. Jun. 26, 2006) (California conviction of battery, in violation of Penal Code 242 (any willful and unlawful use of force or violence upon the person of another), not shown on this record under modified categorical analysis to be a crime of domestic violence, within the meaning of 8 U.S.C.

Cisneros-Perez v. Gonzales, ___ F.3d ___, 2006 WL 1728068 (9th Cir. Jun. 26, 2006) (California conviction of battery, in violation of Penal Code 242 (any willful and unlawful use of force or violence upon the person of another), not shown on this record under modified categorical analysis to be a crime of domestic violence, within the meaning of 8 U.S.C.

Cisneros-Perez v. Gonzales, ___ F.3d ___, 2006 WL 1728068 (9th Cir. Jun. 26, 2006) (California conviction of battery, in violation of Penal Code 242 (any willful and unlawful use of force or violence upon the person of another), not shown on this record under modified categorical analysis to be a crime of domestic violence, within the meaning of 8 U.S.C.

Cisneros-Perez v. Gonzales, ___ F.3d ___, 2006 WL 1728068 (9th Cir. Jun. 26, 2006) (applying modified categorical analysis to determine California conviction of battery, in violation of Penal Code 242 (any willful and unlawful use of force or violence upon the person of another) is not a crime of domestic violence).

The court in this case appears to have misread Tokatly v. Aschcroft, 371 F.3d 613 (9th Cir. Jun.

People v. Hagedorn, __ Cal.App.4th __ (March 18, 2005) (California Penal Code 530.5 (use of identifying information for unlawful purpose) can be violated where person attempts to cash check made out in another's name, using that person's identification, for work that the actor had done using the other person's name; therefore this statute does not require an intent to defraud).