Matter of DK, 25 I&N Dec. 761 (BIA 2012) (noncitizen who has been admitted to the United States cannot be charged under INA 212, 8 U.S.C. 1182, but must be charged under INA 237, 8 U.S.C. 1227).

Reynoso v. Holder, ___ F.2d ___, 2013 WL 1197744 (1st Cir. Mar. 26, 2013) (whether applicant for non-LPR cancellation is barred from showing good moral character, under INA 101(f), 8 U.S.C. 1101(f), is a legal question open to judicial review).

United States v. Rangel-Cataneda, __ F.3d __, No. 12-4408 (4th Cir. Mar. 7, 2013) (Tennessee aggravated statutory rape conviction under Tenn. Code Ann. 39-13-506(c) is not categorically a crime of violence for illegal re-entry purposes, because Tennessee sets the age of consent at eighteen).

United States v. Compian-Torres, 712 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. Mar. 19, 2013) (five-year statute of limitations for illegal reentry begins to run at the time the noncitizen is found in the United States, meaning that the immigration authorities have encountered and know the noncitizen is within the U.S. without admission; encounters by other federal agencies are not sufficient).

United States v. Rodriguez, 711 F.3d 541 (5th Cir. Mar. 15, 2013) (Texas conviction for sexual assault of a child, under Texas Penal Code 22.011(a)(2), constitutes sexual abuse of a minor for purposes of illegal re-entry sentencing; minor in this instance is defined as commonly defined, e.g., a person under 18 years old).
Note: The noncitizen in this case did not challenge whether the statute was sexual or necessarily abusive.

Ex parte De Los Reyes, No. PD-1457-11, slip op. (Tex. Crim. App. Mar. 20, 2013) (Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S. Ct. 1473 (2010), does not apply retroactively to convictions that had become final prior to Mar. 31, 2010).

People v. Mbaabu, 213 Cal.App.4th 1139, 152 Cal.Rptr.3d 818, 821 (4th Dist.Feb. 14, 2013) (We hold that a motion to vacate the judgment in the nature of coram nobis is not a proper vehicle for relief from a constitutional violation of the defendant's right to effective assistance of counsel.).

People v. Mbaabu, 213 Cal.App.4th 1139, ____, 152 Cal.Rptr.3d 818, 821 (4th Dist. Feb. 14, 2013) (To be entitled to relief on a postjudgment motion to vacate the judgment, the courts have required a showing essentially identical to that required under section 1018, that is, on account of duress, fraud, or other fact overreaching the free will and judgment of a defendant he is deprived of the right of a trial on the merits.); citing People v. Gari, 199 Cal.App.4th 510, 523, 132 Cal.Rptr.3d 80 (4th Dist. Sept. 12, 2011).

People v. Mbaabu, 213 Cal.App.4th 1139, ____, 152 Cal.Rptr.3d 818, 821 (4th Dist. Feb. 14, 2013) (The grounds on which a litigant may obtain relief via a writ of error coram nobis are narrower than on habeas corpus. (People v. Kim, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p.

People v. Mbaabu, 213 Cal.App.4th 1139, ____, 152 Cal.Rptr.3d 818, 823-824 (4th Dist. Feb. 14, 2013) (The writ of error coram nobis is granted only when three requirements are met. Those requirements are set forth in the decision of People v. Shipman (1965) 62 Cal.2d 226, at page 230, 42 Cal.Rptr. 1, 397 P.2d 993: (1) Petitioner must show that some fact existed which, without any fault or negligence on his part, was not presented to the court at the trial on the merits, and which if presented would have prevented the rendition of the judgment.