Bellout v. Ashcroft, 363 F.3d 975 (9th Cir. April 12, 2004) (no judicial review IJ finding that noncitizen is ineligible for asylum as someone found to engage in, or to be likely to engage in, terrorist activity under 8 U.S.C. 1158(b)(2)(A)(v)).

Niam v. Ashcroft, 354 F.3d 652 (7th Cir. Jan. 7, 2004) (immigration judge made "surprising omissions and a striking non-sequitur" in denying asylum).

United States v. Ameline, __ F.3d __, 2005 WL 350811 (9th Cir. Feb. 9, 2005) (Booker applies to all criminal cases pending on direct appeal at the time it was rendered; defendants sentence violated the Sixth Amendment, constituted plain error, and seriously affected the fairness of Amelines proceedings; when pre-sentence report is challenged, burden falls upon the government to produce reliable evidence to establish factual predicate for courts base offense level determination; neither court nor government may rely on factual statements in PSR).

By analogy to the duties of a prosecutor in a criminal case, the TA has a duty of fairness, not deportation.  It is in the government's interest that a noncitizen who is eligible for relief and deserving of relief receive relief from deportation.  See Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935); ABA Standards Relating to the Prosecution Function.

Corniel-Rodriguez v. INS, 532 F.2d 301, 306-07 (2d Cir.1976) (the INS was estopped from deporting the petitioner because the INS had failed to give a warning that it was required to give by its own regulations); see Scime v. Bowen, 822 F.2d 7, 9 (2d Cir. 1987) (noting that opinion in Goldberg v. Weinberger, 546 F.2d 477 (2d Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S.

Matter of Garcia-Flores, 17 I. & N. Dec. 325 (BIA 1980) ("Where the rights of individuals are affected, it is incumbent upon agencies to follow their own procedures, even where the internal procedures are possibly more rigorous than otherwise would be required.; Morton v. Ruiz, 415 U.S 199, 235 (1974).").  See also United States v. Caceres, 440 U.S. 741 (1979); Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U.S 135, 152-153 (1945).

Drax v. Reno, 338 F.3d 98 (2d Cir. Aug. 4, 2003) (where the IJ had wrongfully denied a continuance, incorrectly reasoning that a 212 waiver was unavailable, Drax was entitled to a habeas grant and remand).

Lory D. Rosenberg & Kenneth H. Stern, Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: An Antidote for the Convicted Alien, 65 Interpreter Releases 529, 531-32 (1988).

An Immigration Judge must require a noncitizen in removal hearing to state explicitly whether s/he desires representation by counsel. 8 C.F.R. 1240.10(a)(1). Prejudice may consist in the possibility that the noncitizen, with the assistance of counsel, may be able to demonstrate eligibility for relief such as cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)(1). See Baltazar-Alcazar v. INS, 386 F.3d 940, 947-48 (9th Cir. 2004). Failure to do so may invalidate the resulting removal order so as to constitute a defense to illegal reentry after deportation.

Salgado-Diaz v. Ashcroft, ___ F.3d ___ (9th Cir. January 31, 2005) (petition for review granted where Immigration Judge's order denying noncitizen an evidentiary hearing on his claim of unlawful arrest is a due process violation).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0274187p.pdf