Garcia-Lopez v. Ashcroft, 334 F.3d 840, 844 n.4 (9th Cir. June 26, 2003) (statement by respondents accredited representative that respondent had been convicted of a felony offense has no legal effect, and is not a binding admission to having committed such offense. Respondents subjective belief about the nature of his offense is irrelevant to the purely legal questions of the category of offense or the maximum penalty). See also Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I. & N. Dec. 503 (BIA 1980).

A sentence enhancement should not be considered to be part of the record of conviction, for purposes of determining the elements of the offense of which the noncitizen was convicted. See United States v. Corona-Sanchez, 291 F.3d 1201, 1207-1208 (9th Cir. 2002) (en banc)(two-year sentence imposed for a misdemeanor petty theft conviction, which was made a felony by a sentence enhancement based on a prior petty theft conviction, was not imposed "for" the theft offense).

United States v. Sanchez-Sanchez, 333 F.3d 1065 (9th Cir. June 26, 2003) (Arizona conviction for shoplifting, in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. 13-805(I), is not an aggravated felony since the felony sentence is possible only because of a prior-conviction-based sentence enhancement, as opposed to a sentence for the offense itself), citing Corona-Sanchez v. INS, 291 F.3d 1201 (9th Cir. 2002)(en banc).

United States v. Bonilla-Montenegro, 331 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. June 9, 2003) (government's burden of proving existence of aggravated felony to enhance illegal reentry sentence by clear and convincing evidence was satisfied by presentence report listing crime of conviction plus noncitizen's admission to having committed voluntary manslaughter in application for benefits filed with the INS).

United States v. Bonilla-Montenegro, 331 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. June 9, 2003)(government's burden of proving existence of aggravated felony to enhance illegal reentry sentence by clear and convincing evidence was satisfied by presentence report listing crime of conviction plus noncitizen's admission to having committed voluntary manslaughter in application for benefits filed with the INS).

United States v. Lopez-Perera, ___ F.3d ___ (9th Cir. Feb. 21, 2006) (physical presence in a port of entry does not satisfy the element of the crime of being illegally or unlawfully in the United States required to constitute the offense of possession of a firearm by a person "illegally or unlawfully in the United States").
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0550102p.pdf

United States v. Batterjee, ___ F.3d ___, 2004 U.S. App. 2004 WL 574839 (9th Cir. March 24, 2004) (federal conviction for being a non-immigrant alien in possession of a firearm and a non-immigrant alien in possession of ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(5)(B), 924(a)(2) reversed since federal officials affirmatively misled him as to his eligibility to possess firearms and ammunition under 922(g)(5); district court erred in rejecting affirmative defense of entrapment by estoppel).

United States v. Diaz-Diaz, 327 F.3d 410, 2003 WL 1785764 (5th Cir April 3, 2003)(Texas conviction for possession of a prohibited weapon - a short-barrel firearm -- in violation of Tex. Penal Code § 46.05, constituted a listed aggravated felony firearms offense under INA § 101(a)(43)(E)(iii), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(E)(iii), as an "offense described in ... [26 U.S.C. § ] 5861 ... (relating to firearms offenses)," for purposes of a 16-level sentence enhancement for illegal reentry pursuant to U.S.S.G.

United States v. Medina-Anicacio, 325 F.3d 638 (5th Cir. March 24, 2003) (California conviction of possession of dangerous weapon, a dagger, in violation of Penal Code 12020(a), does not constitute an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(F), for purposes of as illegal reentry sentence enhancement under USSG 2L1.2, since it is not a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. 16(a) or (b) because there is no substantial risk offender might use violence in commission of the possession offense)

United States v. Martinez-Garcia, 397 F.3d 1205 (9th Cir. Feb. 11, 2005) (defendants conviction for possession a firearm as an illegal alien affirmed over claim that the firearm, seized pursuant to a search warrant for his home, should have been suppressed due to alleged violations of the Fourth Amendment).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0330532p.pdf