United States v. Balderas-Rubio, 499 F.3d 470 (5th Cir. Sept. 5, 2007) (Oklahoma conviction for indecency or lewd acts with a child under the age of sixteen, in violation of Okla. Stat. tit. 21, 1123, making it unlawful to "to intentionally look upon, touch, maul, or feel the body or private parts of any child under sixteen (16) years of age in any lewd or lascivious manner ...." constitutes "sexual abuse of a minor" for illegal re-entry sentencing purposes.)

United States v. Balderas-Rubio, 499 F.3d 470 (5th Cir. Sept. 5, 2007) (although violation of Okla. Stat. tit.

Ortega-Cervantes v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 1111 (9th Cir. Sept. 4, 2007) (noncitizens who are apprehended within the United States after illegal re-entry, who are detained by the DHS, and who are thereafter "conditional[ly] parole[d]," under INA 236(a)(2)(B); 8 U.S.C. 1226(a)(2)(B) are not "paroled into the United States" for purposes of being eligible for adjustment of status pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1255(a)).

De Vega v. Gonzales, __ F.3d __, 2007 WL 2696489 (1st Cir. Sept. 17, 2007) (Fleuti doctrine did not survive amendments to INA 101(a)(13) made as part of IIRAIRA), agreeing with Malagon de Fuentes v. Gonzales, 462 F.3d 498, 501 (5th Cir. 2006); Tapia v. Ashcroft, 351 F.3d 795, 799 (7th Cir.2003); Tineo v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 382, 394 (3d Cir.2003)). Note: both the conviction and travel occurred after April 1, 1997.

Kozak v. Gonzales, 502 F.3d 34 (1st Cir. Sept. 14, 2007) (petition for review of a denial of a motion to reopen removal proceedings is granted where the BIA applied an inappropriate legal standard in determining whether or not petitioner had received notice of the removal hearing).

Ali v. Gonzales, __ F.3d __ , 2007 WL 2684825 (7th Cir. Sept. 14, 2007) (jurisdiction-stripping provision of INA 242(a)(2)(B)(ii) precludes judicial review of immigration judge's denial of motion for continuance).

Walji v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 432 (5th Cir. Sept. 14, 2007) ("Treating the petition for rehearing en banc as a petition for panel rehearing, the petition for panel rehearing is GRANTED. The prior opinion is withdrawn, and the following opinion is substituted ... When the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ("CIS") does not grant or deny an application for naturalization 120 days after the required examination of the applicant, the applicant may ask a U.S. district court to adjudicate the application. 8 U.S.C. 1447(b).

Cruz-Camey v. Gonzales, __ F.3d __, 2007 WL 2745014 (1st Cir. Sept. 11, 2007) (court lacks jurisdiction to review discretionary denial of cancellation of removal; when BIA reverses IJ grant of cancellation, reversal reinstates IJs implicit order of removability).

Kawashima v. Gonzales, __ F.3d __, 2007 WL 2702330 (9th Cir. Sept. 18, 2007) (BIA did not err in treating motion to reopen under standard timeliness regulations, rather than special 212(c) regulations, where motion to reopen was not specifically labeled a "special motion to seek section 212(c) relief").

New Interim Rule (Sept. 17, 2007):
http://bibdaily.com/pdfs/E7-17807.pdf



Analysis by ASISTA and Legal Momentums Immigrant Women Program:
http://bibdaily.com/pdfs/NN%20U%20visa%20regs%20fact%20sheet%20final%209...