Hanan v. Gonzales, 449 F.3d 834 (8th Cir. 2006) (court lacks jurisdiction to review factual determination by immigration judge that noncitizen would be subject to torture if returned to Afghanistan, which is not a constitutional claim or question of law).

It appears to be an open question whether a waiver under INA 212(c) may currently be used to avoid inadmissibility under INA 212(a)(2)(C) (reason to believe noncitizen is a drug trafficker). On one hand, that ground of inadmissibility is not excepted from 212(c) eligibility under 8 C.F.R. 1212.3(f)(3). On the other hand, the regulations allow for 212(c) for "aliens who pleaded guilty or nolo contendere to certain crimes." 8 C.F.R. 1212.3(h).

Guyadin vs Gonzales, 449 F.3d 465 (2d Cir. May 30, 2006) (court lacks jurisdiction to review question of whether BIA member responsible for an appeal erred in not referring the appeal to a three-member BIA panel). But see Purveegiin v. Gonzales, __ F.3d __ (3d Cir. Jun. 1, 2006).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/2nd/053252p.pdf

Purveegiin v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 684 (3d Cir. Jun. 1, 2006) (court has jurisdiction to review question of whether BIA member responsible for an appeal erred in not referring the appeal to a three-member BIA panel). But see, Guyadin v. Gonzales, __ F.3d __ (2d Cir. May 30, 2006).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/3rd/043797p.pdf

United States v. Ortuno-Higareda, 450 F.3d 406 (9th Cir. Jun. 8, 2006) (district court had jurisdiction to revoke defendant's supervised release upon illegal re-entry; sufficient evidence existed, without conviction for illegal re-entry, to prove that defendant violated the conditions of his supervised release).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0410257p.pdf

United States v. Fuller, __ F.3d __ (5th Cir. Jun. 16, 2006) (burglary of a building, in violation of Texas Penal Code 30.02, is a crime of violence for purposes of the Armed Career Criminal Act at 18 U.S.C. 924(e)), following United States
v. Silva, 957 F.2d 157, 162 (5th Cir. 1992).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/5th/0351378cr0p.pdf

"That is, immigration enforcement obligations do not consist only of initiating and conducting prompt proceedings that lead to removals at any cost. Rather, as has been said, the government wins when justice is done. In that regard, the handbook for trial attorneys states that '[t]he respondent should be aided in obtaining any procedural rights or benefits required by the statute, regulation and controlling
court decision, of the requirements of fairness.'" Handbook for Trial Attorneys 1.3 (1964). See generally Freeport-McMoRan Oil & Gas Co. v. FERC, 962 F.2d 45, 48 (D.C. Cir.

Almaghzar v. Gonzales, 450 F.3d 415 (9th Cir. Jun. 8, 2006) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claim that IJ erred in concluding that alien's felony convictions constituted particularly serious crimes).

Matter of SK, 23 I&N Dec. 936 (BIA Jun. 8, 2006) (contribution of $1,100 to an organization associated with a terrorist organization was sufficient to demonstrate "material support" of a terrorist organization, thereby disqualifying respondent from asylum and withholding of removal, even though respondent arguably did not intend the donation to be used for terrorist activities; INA 212(a)(3)(B) does not allow a "totality of the circumstances" in determining whether an organization is engaged in terrorist activity).

Ballesteros v. Ashcroft, 452 F.3d 1153 (10th Cir. Jun. 14, 2006) (DHS may, without following APA requirements of notice and comment, redetermine detention boundaries, even to the extend that noncitizens arrested in one federal circuit may be subject to the law of a separate circuit), reversed, Ballesteros v. Gonzales, ___ F.3d ___, 2007 WL 926831 (10th Cir. March 29, 2007), to the extent the prior decision is inconsistent Lopez v. Gonzalez, 127 S.Ct. 625 (2006).