Olatunji v. Ashcroft, 387 F.3d 383 (4th Cir. October 19, 2004) ("we hold that reliance (whether subjective or objective) is not a requirement of impermissible retroactivity and that the government's notice is insufficient to overcome the impermissibly retroactive effect of IIRAIRA on Olatunji's guilty plea.")

In 1996, the INS General Counsel withdrew a prior legal opinion and ruled that "simple possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana" includes all other cannabis products, including hashish, that fall within the broad federal definition of marijuana provided in 21 U.S.C. 802(16).  INS General Counsel Legal Opinion 96-3 (April 23, 1996), withdrawing INS General Counsel Legal Opinion 92-47 (Aug. 19, 1992) and reaffirming memoranda dated August 11, 1994, and February 17, 1994.

Medina v. Ashcroft, 393 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. Jan. 4, 2005) (statutory exception to controlled substances conviction deportation ground, INA 237(a)(2)(B)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(B)(i), for "a single offense involving possession for one's own use of 30 grams or less of marijuana," includes an implied exception for personal use of a small amount of marijuana).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0371966p.pdf

Medina v. Ashcroft, 393 F.3d 1063 (9TH Cir. Jan. 4, 2005) (Nevada conviction of attempting to be under the influence of THC-carboxylic acid, a controlled substance, in violation of Nev. Rev. Stat.

Patel v. Gonzales, ___ F.3d ___, 2005 WL 3556155 (6th Cir. Dec. 30, 2005) (1996 amendments to INA 212(i), relating to the Attorney Generals discretionary power to waive removal of an immigrant being deported on the basis of fraud, are not retroactive).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/6th/043829p.pdf

INA 212(a)(1)(H), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(1)(H)

Convictions of minor offenses, or even of major offenses, which are punished in a perfunctory manner as "non-judicial punishment," do not constitute convictions of "crimes," and thus cannot trigger deportation under any of the deportation grounds requiring criminal convictions. This is true because no incarceration is possible as a result of this minor and informal procedure, and because the procedure cannot be called a criminal procedure so as to result in a criminal conviction of a crime. See Matter of Eslamizar, 23 I. & N. Dec. 684 (BIA Oct. 19, 2004) (en banc).

In Matter of Eslamizar, 23 I. & N. Dec. 684 (BIA Oct. 19, 2004) (en banc) (court procedures under Ore. Rev. Stat. 153.076, did not constitute a conviction for immigration purposes, since the proceedings do not allow a jury trial, right to court-appointed counsel, or proof beyond a reasonable doubt), overruling Matter of CR, 8 I. & N. Dec.

Convictions rendered by minor military informal procedures, such as Captain's Mast, should not be considered as criminal convictions for immigration purposes, since the most fundamental criminal procedures guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution are not respected. See Matter of Eslamizar, 23 I. & N. Dec. 684 (BIA Oct. 19, 2004)(en banc)(guilty finding of third-degree theft, in violation of Ore. Rev. Stat. 164.043, by court under procedures of Ore. Rev. Stat.

     The Ninth Circuit has established the rule that a sentence imposed pursuant to a recidivist sentence enhancement is not considered to constitute part of a sentence imposed, for determining whether a conviction qualifies as an aggravated felony for purposes of enhancing a sentence for illegal reentry after deportation. United States v. Corona-Sanchez, 29 F.3d 1201 (9th Cir. 2002) (en banc).