Apr 96 Gen Co memo 96-5

Tunis v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 547 (7th Cir. May 15, 2006) (Wisconsin conviction of two counts of selling less than a gram of cocaine, with two years suspended sentence, with seven months actual custody ordered, constituted aggravated felony drug trafficking convictions, under INA 101(a)(43)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(B), and thus particularly serious crimes under 8 U.S.C.

Afridi v. Gonzales, 442 F.3d 1212 (9th Cir. Apr. 4, 2006) (BIA acted arbitrarily in failing to consider the facts of noncitizens California conviction for unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor in applying Frentescu standard to decide whether conviction constituted a "particularly serious crime" for purposes of withholding of removal).

INA 301(f) allows "a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years" to be considered a citizen of the United States unless the person is "shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States."

Tran v. Gonzales, __ F.3d __ (6th Cir. May 17, 2006) (IIRAIRA properly applied to pre-IIRAIRA conviction)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/6th/043800p.pdf

Avendano-Espejo v. Department of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 503 (2d Cir. May 11, 2006) (court lacks jurisdiction to review discretionary denial of INA 212(c) relief).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/2nd/0340921p.pdf

When an administrative agency inexplicably departs from past practices, precedents, and/or established procedures, it abuses its discretion. Margalli-Olvera v. INS, 43 F.3d 345 (8th Cir. 1994) (BIA abused discretion by changing its position without explanation re: 212(c) tolling period); Gonzalez-Batoun v. INS, 791 F.2d 681 (9th Cir. 1986) (BIA abused discretion when it gave no reason for deviation from past practice); Salehpour v. INS, 761 F.2d 1442 (9th Cir. 1985) (abuse of discretion occurs where agency interpretation is inconsistent with its own regulations); Ke Zhen Zhao v. U. S.

Khan v. Attorney General, 448 F.3d 226 (3d Cir. May 22, 2006) (court of appeals jurisdiction to consider arguments that BIA erred in affirming denial of request for continuance of removal hearing as abuse of discretion and as a violation of due process).

Savoury v. U.S. Attorney General, 449 F.3d 1307 (11th Cir. May 25, 2006) (doctrine of laches is inapplicable against government who admitted respondent as LPR despite knowledge of a controlled substances conviction, and later sought to exclude him when he arrived from a trip abroad: "Neither this Court nor the Supreme Court has ever indicated that laches applies against the government.

Delgado-Reynua v. Gonzales, 450 F.3d 596 (5th Cir. May 23, 2006) (noncitizens claim that BIA incorrectly applied de novo review in reversing IJs discretionary grant of relief under INA 212(c) was not a legal question subject to review; finding noncitizens claim was merely a disguised attempt to obtain circuit court review of discretionary issue).