Hernandez v. Holder, 738 F.3d 1099 (9th Cir. Dec. 24, 2013) (place-of-filing rule for motions to reopen, which provides that a motion to reopen must be filed with the immigration judge when the BIA dismisses an appeal on jurisdictional grounds, is only a procedural claims-processing rule and not a jurisdictional bar to the BIA's authority to consider a motion to reopen).

United States v. Lin, 738 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. Dec. 24, 2013) (federal convictions under 18 U.S.C. 1546(a) for fraud and misuse of visas, permits, and other documents are reversed where 1546(a) does not prohibit the mere possession of an unlawfully obtained drivers license, and the government presented no evidence that defendant possessed any other document covered by the statute).

United States v. Shorty, 741 F.3d 961 (9th Cir. Dec. 20, 2013) (district court failed to take the necessary precautions to ensure defendants jury-trial waiver was made knowingly and intelligently, after learning that defendant had low I.Q. and was learning disabled, when district court failed to conduct in-depth colloquy concerning jury-trial waiver).

Murillo-Prado v. Holder, 735 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th Cir. Nov. 20, 2013) (Arizona conviction for racketeering, in violation of Ariz.Rev.Stat. 13"2301, is not categorically a RICO aggravated felony offense, because Arizona's definition of racketeering includes two offenses not explicitly listed in its federal counterpart: (1) [i]ntentional or reckless false statements or publications concerning land for sale or lease or sale of subdivided lands or sale and mortgaging of unsubdivided lands, and (2) making [o]bscene or indecent telephone communications to minors for commercial purposes,).

People v. Willis, 222 Cal.App.4th 141, 165 Cal.Rptr.3d 600 (Dec. 16, 2013) (reversing trial court's extension of probation beyond three years from the beginning of his original probation period, where an earlier court treated defendant's offense as a misdemeanor, so the trial court lacked authority to extend his probation period beyond the three- year maximum probation period for misdemeanors).

In United States v. Gomez, 732 F.3d 971 (9th Cir. Oct. 7, 2013), the Ninth Circuit outlined the general analysis used when a defendant collaterally attacks the legal validity of the deportation order used to establish an essential element of the offense of illegal reentry after deportation:

When an alien defendant is prosecuted for illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C.

United States v. Liu, 731 F.3d 982 (9th Cir. Oct. 1, 2013) (federal conviction of copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. 506(a) requires proof that defendant knew he was acting illegally, rather than simply knew he was making copies; knowingly trafficking in counterfeit labels under 18 U.S.C. 2318(a)(1) requires knowledge that the labels were counterfeit).

United States v. Gomez, 732 F.3d 971, 984 n.10 (9th Cir. Oct. 7, 2013) (Arizona's definition of attempt is coextensive with the federal definition. United States v. Taylor, 529 F.3d 1232, 1238 (9th Cir.2008) (reviewing several Arizona cases that pre-date Gomez's conviction and deportation); see also United States v. Gomez"Hernandez, 680 F.3d 1171, 1175 (9th Cir. 2012).).

Rodriguez-Castellon v. Holder, 733 F.3d 847 (9th Cir. Oct. 22, 2013) (California conviction for lewd and lascivious acts upon a 15-year-old girl when the actor is at least ten years older, under Penal Code 288(c)(1), is a categorical crime of violence and therefore an aggravated felony, under INA 101(a)(43)(F), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(F), because this offense, in the ordinary case, poses a substantial risk of the use of physical force under 18 U.S.C. 16(b)).

Starting January 1, 2014, a conviction for transportation under Health & Safety Code 11352 and 11379 will automatically qualify as a drug trafficking aggravated felony if the record of conviction identifies a federally listed controlled substance. AB 721, signed into law on Oct. 3, 2013, redefines transport to include only transportation for sale and now excludes transportation for personal use.