Martinez-Perez v. Ashcroft, __ F.3d __ (9th Cir. August 3, 2005) (under California law, an aider and abettor can be adequately charged in language accusing him or her of directly committing the offense, therefore a plea to a charge alleging direct commission of a theft does not establish that the offense pled to was not aiding and abetting, and therefore does not establish that the offense is an aggravated felony).  See also Penuliar v Aschroft, 395 F.3d 1037, 1045-46 (9th Cir. 2005).

See § 7.49

See § 7.34

See § 7.49

According to the INS Guidance issued in the Federal Register in May of 1999, the only types of benefits that raise public charge issues are cash income assistance programs like TANF and SSI.  Housing subsidy programs are not among the programs that INS considered creating public charge concerns.  In fact they were expressly excluded. Hopefully when it publishes a final rule on public charge, USCIS will reaffirm the earlier INS Guidance.

Matter of Polanco, 20 I. & N. Dec. 894 (BIA Oct. 21, 1994) (noncitizen who has waived or exhausted the right to a direct appeal of a conviction is subject to deportation, and the potential for discretionary review on direct appeal will not prevent the conviction from being considered final for immigration purposes).

Matter of Chairz-Castaneda, 21 I. & N. Dec. 44 (BIA April 28, 1995) (right to appeal such issues as whether a violation of probation has occurred or the sentence imposed upon entry of judgment was correct will not prevent a finding of a final conviction for immigration purposes; to disturb finality, issues on appeal must relate to the issue of "guilt or innocence of the original charge.").

United States v. Orellana, ___ F.3d ___ , 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 5436 (5th Cir. April 5, 2005) ("Because we conclude that it is uncertain whether Congress intended to criminalize the possession of firearms by aliens in receipt of lawful temporary protected status, we apply the rule of lenity and reverse.").  

Shepard v. United States, __ U.S. __ (March 07, 2005) (a court sentencing under the Armed Career Criminal Act may not look to police reports or complaint applications to determine whether an earlier guilty plea necessarily admitted, and supported a conviction for, generic burglary).

The "aiding and abetting" guideline was not deleted, but just renumbered, so aiding and abetting is still listed under the guidelines. The better argument is that the Guidelines and federal sentencing cases do not control for immigration purposes. In United States v. Vidal, after stating that United States v. Corona-Sanchez does not control because it was decided under guidelines which have since been amended, the court stated: "This commentary [U.S.S.G. 2L1.2, cmt.