Matter of Artigas, 23 I. & N. Dec. 99 (BIA 2001) (suggesting argument that certain arriving aliens may adjust status under INA § 245i, 8 U.S.C. 1255).

Bamba v. Riley, 366 F.3d 195 (3d Cir. April 27, 2004) (noncitizen convicted of aggravated felony is subject to expedited removal, under 8 U.S.C. 1228(b), even though he was not admitted into the United States, but rather was paroled into the United States for a limited purpose).

The statute authorizing administrative removal states as a matter of law that someone in administrative removal proceedings is not eligible for discretionary relief even though a person may theoretically be eligible for some sort of relief, such as adjustment of status with a firearms trafficking aggravated felony. 8 U.S.C. 1228(b)(5). As to mandatory forms of relief, the regulations implementing the statute allow for some mechanism to apply for withholding of removal. See 8 CFR 238.

Loeza-Dominguez v. Gonzales, 428 F.3d 1156 (8th Cir. Nov. 17, 2005) (Minnesota conviction of malicious punishment of a child in violation of Minn.Stat. 609.377(1) ("intentional acts with respect to a child, [that] evidence[] unreasonable force or cruel discipline that is excessive under the circumstances"), constituted a crime of "child abuse" under INA 237(a)(2)(E)(i), 8 U.S.C.

Moore, J. Ryan. Note. Reinterpreting the Immigration and Nationality Acts categorical bar to discretionary relief for "aggravated felons" in light of international law: extending ... (Beharry v. Reno, 183 F. Supp. 2d 584, E.D.N.Y. 2002, revd on other grounds, 329 F.3d 51, 2d Cir. 2003.) 21 Ariz. J. Intl & Comp. L. 535-576 (2004).

Ilchuk v. Attorney Genera, ___ F.3d ___, 2006 WL 90124 (3d Cir. Jan. 17, 2006)(court adopts broad, modern definition of theft, for purposes of the aggravated felony definition, including theft of services).

Ilchuk v. Attorney Genera, ___ F.3d ___, 2006 WL 90124 (3d Cir. Jan. 17, 2006) (Pennsylvania conviction of convicted of theft of services, in violation of 18 Penn. Consol. Stats. Ann. 3926(b) ["guilty of theft if, having control over the disposition of services of others to which he is not entitled, he knowingly diverts such services to his own benefit or to the benefit of another not entitled thereto."], with a six- to 23-month sentence to home arrest, constituted theft offense aggravated felony under INA 101(a)(43)(G), 8 U.S.C.

Jaggerneuth v. U.S. Atty General, ___ F.3d ___, 2005 WL 3454321 (11th Cir. Dec. 19, 2005) (Florida conviction of grand theft, in violation of Fla. Stat. 812.014(1)(2001), did not constitute aggravated felony theft, under INA 101(a)(43)(G), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(G), for immigration purposes, because the statute was divisible as subsection (b) required only intent to appropriate use of the property, and the record of conviction did not establish that the defendant was convicted under subsection (a)).

United States v. Vidal, 426 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. Oct. 24, 2005) ", decision withdrawn pending hearing en banc, United States v. Vidal, __ F.3d__, 2006 WL 1822282 (9th Cir. Jun 29, 2006)." (California conviction of unlawful taking of a vehicle, in violation of Vehicle Code 10851, constitutes an aggravated felony under the US Sentencing Guidelines, for purposes of an eight-level increase in the base offense level for an illegal reentry sentence).

Soliman v. Gonzalez, 419 F.3d 276 (4th Cir. Aug. 22, 2005) (fraudulent use of a credit card, in violation of Virginia Code 18.2-195, where the actor uses a credit card belonging to a different person without that persons authorization to obtain something of value is not an aggravated felony theft offense, but a fraud offense).