Membreno v. Ashcroft, 385 F.3d 1245 (9th Cir. Oct. 19, 2004) (California conviction of assault with a firearm, in violation of Cal. Penal Code 245(a)(2), for which imposition of sentence was suspended and six months imposed as a condition of probation, remained a felony since court did not expressly reduce the conviction to a misdemeanor; conviction therefore did not fall within the Petty Offense Exception).

United States v. Lucio, ___ F.3d ___ (5th Cir. Oct. 12, 2005) (conviction under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(5)(A) [possession of firearm by undocumented noncitizen] upheld since undocumented noncitizens immigration status remains unlawful during the pendency of an application to adjust status; mere fact that he has received permission to work in the county does not alter the initial unlawfulness of his immigration status).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/5th/0420331cv0p.pdf

Altamirano v. Gonzales, ___ F.3d ___, 2005 WL 2839982 (9th Cir. Oct. 31, 2005) (a parolee has not been "admitted" to the United States, and therefore is subject to the grounds of inadmissibility, and bears the burden of showing admissibility).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0370737p.pdf

Ponnapula v. Ashcroft, 373 F.3d 480, 494 (3d Cir.

Hernandez-Castillo v. Moore, ___ F.Supp.2d ___ 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142 (W.D.Tex. January 6, 2005) (district court denied government's motion to dismiss federal habeas petition claiming error to deny INA 212(c) relief under St. Cyr, since the record was not fully developed, and did not show whether Applicant was offered a plea agreement or relied on the availability of 212(c) for relief).

Where a conviction resulted from a jury trial, rather than a guilty plea, a majority of the circuit hold that noncitizens who exercise the right to go to trial do not have the type of reliance interests that the Supreme Court focused on in INS v. St. Cyr, and are therefore ineligible to apply for INA 212(c) relief. Dias v. INS, 311 F.3d 456, 458 (1st Cir. 2002); Rankine v. Reno, 319 F.3d 93, 100 (2nd Cir. 2003); Armendariz-Montoya v. Sonchik, 291 F.3d 1116,1121-22 (9th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 539 U.S. 902, 156 L. Ed. 2d 110, 123 S. Ct.

Edwards v. INS, ___ F.3d ___, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 26335 (2d Cir. December 17, 2004) (Unpublished) (court granted equitable nunc pro tunc relief by allowing noncitizen to apply for INA 212(c) relief as if he were applying at the time his removal order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).

Edwards v. INS, 393 F.3d 299 (2d Cir. Dec. 17, 2004) (Nunc pro tunc relief is appropriate for noncitizens who were improperly denied relief under 212(c) of the INA, prior to INS v. St. Cyr, but subsequently became ineligible for relief under 212(c) upon accruing five years aggregate imprisonment; imprisonment period should be measured as of the date they applied or sought to apply for relief in immigration court).

In the regulation governing relief under former INA 212(c) published September 28, 2004, the government appears to state that aggravated felonies unrelated to controlled substances may not be waived because there is no specific "aggravated felony" ground of inadmissibility. See 69 Fed. Reg. 57831-2, creating 8 C.F.R. 1212.3(f)(5); Werlin, AILF Practice Advisory -- 212(c) Regulations pp. 4-5 (October 19, 2004). The government is mistaken.

Oritz v. Ashcroft, __ F.3d __ (9th Cir. Oct. 6, 2004) (California conviction for possession of a controlled substance was not an aggravated felony, therefore IJ erred in failing to inform respondent that he was eligible for voluntary departure; district court therefore erred in dismissing collateral attack of illegal reentry conviction).