In Chaidez v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 1103 (Feb. 20, 2013), the court held Padilla did not apply to a post-conviction challenge to a federal conviction in a case already final when Padilla was decided on March 31, 2010 on grounds that counsel failed to advise the defendant concerning the immigration consequences of a plea. Chaidez involved a claim of failure to advise, rather than affirmative misadvice. Its holding therefore does not pertain in cases involving affirmative misadvice.

Gallimore v. Holder, 715 F.3d 687 (8th Cir. May 22, 2013) (jurisdictional bar to review where noncitizen has committed an aggravated felony bars petition to review denial of relief under the convention against torture).

United States v. Roblero-Ramirez, ___ F.3d ___, 2013 WL 2927916 (8th Cir. Jun. 17, 2013) (Nebraska conviction for violation of Neb.Rev.St. 28-305, sudden quarrel manslaughter, is not an aggravated felony crime of violence for illegal re-entry sentencing purposes where the statute does not require intent to kill).

Cardenas-Delgado v. Holder, __ F.3d __ No. 11-72057 (9th Cir. 2013) (relief under former INA 212(c) is available to noncitizens who were convicted by jury trial; it is not required that the noncitizen establish reliance to show repeal of former INA 212(c) was impermissibly retroactive).

United States v. Cabrera-Gutierrez, ___ F.3d ___, 2013 WL 2378574 (9th Cir. Jun. 3, 2013) (Congress has the authority to require a convicted sex offender who traveled interstate to register as a sex offender)

United States v. Cabrera-Gutierrez, ___ F.3d ___, 2013 WL 2378574 (9th Cir. Jun. 3, 2013) (Oregon conviction for violation of ORS 163.425, second degree sexual abuse, was a crime of sexual abuse for federal sex offender registry purposes where the plea agreement indicated that the victim was unable to consent due to intoxication).
NOTE: This case was published prior to Descamps v. United States, __ U.S. __ (Jun. 20, 2013).

United States v. Sanchez-Aguilar, __ F.3d __ (9th Cir. Jun. 19, 2013) (defendant's collateral attack on his prior removal order fails because the failure of the immigration officer to inform him of his ability to request withdrawal of his application of admission did not violate his due process rights).

Veltmann Barragan v. Holder, __ F.3d __ (9th Cir. Jun. 19, 2013) (noncitizens who are removable but not yet subject to a removal order are not "in custody" for purposes of 28 U.S.C. 2241).

Durbin v. California, __ F.3d __ (9th Cir. Jun. 20, 2013) (federal habeas review of constitutional challenge to California conviction triggering three-strikes rule permitted even though petitioner was no longer in custody on the prior conviction, where petitioner acted with reasonable diligence by filing pro se state habeas petition raising his constitution claim).

United States v. Avery, 719 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir. Jun. 18, 2013) (A defendant has procedurally defaulted a claim by failing to raise it on direct review, [and] the claim may be raised in habeas only if the defendant can first demonstrate either cause and actual prejudice or that he is actually innocent. Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614, 622, 118 S.Ct. 1604, 140 L.Ed.2d 828 (1998) (citations omitted). Actual innocence is an equitable remedy that permits a petitioner to obtain collateral review of a procedurally defaulted claim. Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 327, 115 S.Ct.