United States v. Martinez, ___ F.3d ___, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 437 (8th Cir. Jan. 14, 2004) (conviction affirmed over objection that district court erroneously denied suppression motion because initial traffic stop and continued detention which resulted in discovery and seizure of drugs were both illegal, as defendant claimed that officer stopped him only because of his nationality).

United States v. Huerta-Orosco, 340 F.3d 601 (8th Cir. August 20, 2003) (defendant waived objection to the introduction of evidence concerning his undocumented immigration status by introducing evidence concerning his "lost papers" during his direct testimony).
To read the full text of this opinion, go to:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/8th/022432p.pdf

Abimbola v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 173 (2d Cir. Aug. 5, 2004) (Alford plea is a plea of guilt and a conviction under INA 101(a)(48)(A)).

A valuable chart of the immigration consequences of California crimes is available on the Immigrant Legal Resource Center web site at www.ilrc.org/Cal_DIP_Chart_by_section.pdf. A chart for federal offenses, and charts for several other charts, are available on the web site of the National Immigration Project at www.nationalimmigrationproject.org.

Arizona rules of criminal procedure contain a state advisal requirement that the court, before accepting a plea of guilty or no contest, advise every defendant concerning potential adverse immigration consequences of the plea. These rules also state the defendant is not to be required to disclose his or her immigration status. After plea, however, defendants are seen by a presentence report writer, who asks them their birthplace, mothers name and birthplace, the fathers name and birthplace.

Vasquez-Ramirez v. US Dist. Court for the S. Dist. of California, 443 F.3d 692 (9th Cir. Apr. 6, 2006) (once a prosecutor brings charges against a defendant, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 requires judge to accept defendants guilty plea to those charges, regardless of whether the judge feels prosecutors charging decision was too aggressive or too lenient).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0475715p.pdf

Some issues to cover when negotiating with prosecutors, either to obtain a safe plea bargain that will not result in adverse immigration consequences, or when trying to negotiate the reopening of a case via post conviction relief for the same purposes, would be the following: (1)  It is legitimate to negotiate dispositions in light of the immigration consequences to the defendant and innocent family and friends;
(2)  Prosecutorial discretion is broad enough to take into account totality of the circumstances;

Edwards v. INS, 393 F.3d 299 (2d Cir. Dec. 17, 2004) (court granted equitable nunc pro tunc relief by allowing noncitizen to apply for INA 212(c) relief as if he were applying at the time his removal order became administratively final, which was before he had served five actual years in custody and thereby became disqualified for this relief; court did not reach question of whether statute compelled this result or whether five-year sentence bar was analogous to a statute of limitations which could be equitably tolled).

Riggs v. Fairman, ___ F.3d ___ (9th Cir. March 7, 2005) (where plaintiff was denied effective assistance of counsel, the district court did not err in ordering the parties to return to the pre-error stage of the criminal proceeding).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0255185p.pdf

Matter of A, 9 I. & N. Dec. 302 (BIA 1961) ("when the alien is prevented from exercising a right granted him within a statutory period by unexplained or unnecessary administrative delay, or carelessness in handling his application, or in failing to inform him of his right, he will not be barred from asserting his rights or be deprived of the right.")