United States v. Contreras-Salas,
387 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir. Nov. 3, 2004) (Nevada conviction of
child abuse under Nev. Rev. Statutes § 200.508 does not qualify
as a crime of violence for purposes of enhancement of sentence
for unlawful re-entry after deportation, since statute may
be violated by negligence alone, and record of conviction
was unclear as to level of intent).

The Ninth Circuit panel's reasoning that, " [u]nder Ayala-Chavez the Attorney General has broad discretion to grant or deny [212(c)] waivers and may establish general standards governing the exercise of such discretion 'as long as these standards are rationally related to the statutory scheme.' Id. " Rivas-Gomez v. Gonzales, 441 F.3d 1072, 1078 (9th Cir. 2006) (emphasis added) underscores, the argument that the use of the exceptional and extremely unusual hardship standard in adjudicating a 212(h) application is inappropriate.

Lee v. United States, 368
F.3d 218 (3d Cir. May 19, 2004) (federal conviction of filing
false income tax returns, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1),
is not an aggravated felony, as defined by INA § 101(a)(43)(M)(i),
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(M)(i), for immigration purposes, as
INA § 101(a)(43)(M)(ii), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(M)(ii) specifically
covers tax evasion, but INA § 101(a)(43)(M)(ii), 8 U.S.C.

Sharma v. Ashcroft,
158 F.Supp.2d 519, 521 (E.D.Pa. May 25, 2001) (federal conviction
of making false statements on a loan application, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 1014, constitutes an "aggravated felony"
as defined by 8 U.S .C. § 1101(a)(43)(M)(i), for immigration
purposes).

Li v. Ashcroft,
389 F.3d 892 (9th Cir. Nov. 19, 2004) (federal conviction
of making a false statement to a United States official, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001, is divisible with respect to
the fraud offense aggravated felony defined in INA § 101(a)(43)(M)(i),
8 U.S.C.

Obale v. Attorney General, 453 F.3d 151 (3d Cir. 2006) (courts may stay voluntary departure period).

Perez v. United States, ___ F.Supp. ___, ___ (D.N.Y. 2006) ("[B]ecause Petitioner has established that he is a United States citizen, it is a constitutional violation to convict him for reentering the United States. As a result, the Court finds that Petitioners conviction and, in turn, his sentence should be vacated pursuant to 28
U.S.C. 2255.")

For more information about stays of voluntary departure during court of appeals review and an overview of the case law in other courts, see AILFs Practice Advisory, Protecting Voluntary Departure Period During Court of Appeals Review (October 25, 2005) available at http://www.ailf.org/lac/lac_pa_chrono.shtml.

Reyez-Melendez v. INS, 342 F.3d 1001 (9th Cir. 2003) (bias of immigration judge her from acting as a neutral fact-finder and prevented her from considering and evaluating evidence relevant to establishing extreme hardship).

Matter of Romalez, 23 I&N Dec.