Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. Feb. 13, 2013) (granting petition for review, since BIA misapplied its own precedent in holding that witnesses who testify against gang members may not constitute a particular social group due to a lack of social visibility for purposes of asylum eligibility).

Correa-Rivera v. Holder, 706 F.3ed 1128 ____ (9th Cir. 2013) (Lozada doesn't require that a petitioner present probative evidence of having submitted a complaint to the bar, much less correspondence from the bar acknowledging such a complaint. Lozada suggests only that the motion should reflect whether such a complaint has been filed.).

United States v. Reyes, ___ F.Supp.2d ___, ___, 2012 WL 5389697 (N.D.Cal., 2012) (conviction of possession of a short-barreled shotgun is not a crime of violence within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 16(b), because [T]he risk of physical force central to the definition of a crime of violence under 16(b) is the risk of its use in the course of committing the offense"its use in completing the crime.); noting that United States v. Dunn, 946 F.2d 615, 620"21 (9th Cir.1991), has been effectively overruled by Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1, 125 S.Ct.

Tamayo-Tamayo v. Holder, 709 F.3d 795 (9th Cir. Feb. 28, 2013) (denying petition for review of reinstatement of 1989 removal order, after illegal reentry, where 1993 removal order did not invalidate original removal order, and procedurally regular, yet substantively illegal, reentry met the requirement in INA 241(a)(5), 8 U.S.C. 1231(a)(5), that he had "reentered the United States illegally," where petitioner tricked the border official into allowing him physically to enter by presenting an invalid alien registration card).

People v. Pangan, ___ Cal.App.4th ___, 2013 WL 412913 (Feb. 4, 2013) (counsels failure to raise the issue of the time value of money in determining the victims economic loss based on a diminished or lost stream of future payments was ineffective assistance of counsel, and no satisfactory explanation excused counsel's failure).

People v. Esmaili, ___ Cal.App.4th ___, 2013 WL 693120 (1st Dist. Feb. 27, 2013) (to establish factual innocence, defendant must show there was "no reasonable cause" to believe defendant guilty; order discharging defendant for lack of probable cause did not operate as a finding of factual innocence under Penal Code 851.8).

Failure to advise claims remain alive for convictions that became final prior to Padilla in those jurisdictions with decisions to that effect, such as California, which had already held that failure to advise constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. People v. Soriano, 194 Cal.App.3d 1470 (1987). The same is true for failure to defend claims. People v. Barocio, 216 Cal.App.3d 99 (1989). The same is true of affirmative misadvice claims. In re Resendiz, 25 Cal.4th 230, 248, 105 Cal.Rptr. 2d 431 (2001).

People v. Mbaabu, 213 Cal.App.4th 1139, 152 Cal.Rptr.3d 818 (4th Dist.Feb. 14, 2013) (unappealed denial of defendant's first postjudgment motion to withdraw his guilty plea was res judicata).

http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=36593

In Chaidez v. United States, ___ U.S.___, ___ S.Ct.___, 2013 WL 610201 (Feb. 20, 2013), the Supreme Court held that Padilla does not apply to convictions that were already final on March 31, 2010 under the retroactivity analysis in Teague. Padilla did not much change on the California law on this subject. In California, in 1987, the First District Court of Appeals held it is ineffective assistance of counsel to fail to investigate the federal immigration consequences of a disposition and to fail to advise a foreign national defendant of them before plea. People v.