Hashish v. Gonzales, 442 F.3d 572 (7th Cir. Mar. 24, 2006) (timely request for pre-conclusion voluntary departure not alone sufficient to avoid stricter requirements of post-conclusion voluntary departure; other requirements of 8 U.S.C. 1240.26(b)(1)(i), including waiver of removal offenses or relief, must also be met).
Banda Oritz v. Gonzalez, __ F.3d __ (5th Cir. Mar. 28, 2006) (grant of a motion to reopen does not automatically stay a period of voluntary departure; noncitizen must additionally request stay or reinstatement of voluntary departure period), disagreeing with Azarte v. Ashcroft, 394 F.3d 1278 (9th Cir.2005); Kanivets v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 330 (3d Cir.2005); Sidikhouya v. Gonzales, 407 F.3d 950 (8th Cir.2005).
Lawrence v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 221 (1st Cir. May 5, 2006) (where pre-IIRAIRA conviction was vacated on a basis of legal invalidity, but replaced with a new plea after IIRAIRA that also triggers removal, a waiver under INA 212(c) is unavailable where the new plea was not entered nunc pro tunc).
Avendano-Espejo v. Department of Homeland Sec., __ F.3d __ (2d Cir. May 11, 2006) (court lacks jurisdiction to review discretionary denial of INA 212(c) relief).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/2nd/0340921p.pdf
Savoury v. United States Atty Gen., __ F.3d __ (11th Cir. May 25, 2006) (noncitizen who was inadmissible at time of adjustment of status, but was allowed to adjust status by mistake, is not a noncitizen lawfully admitted to the United States for purposes of demonstrating eligibility for relief under former INA 212(c)).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/11th/0510966p.pdf
Matter of G-A-, 7 I. & N. Dec. 274 (BIA 1956) (noncitizen in deportation proceedings allowed to apply for INA 212(c) relief where noncitizen had traveled out of the United States after conviction but before the deportation proceedings, on the theory that the INS should not have admitted the person after the conviction without a 212(c) waiver and that an IJ can grant the 212(c) waiver nunc pro tunc to the prior post-conviction/pre-deportation proceedings entry). See also, Matter of Arias-Uribe, 13 I. & N. Dec. 696 (BIA 1971).
Rivas-Gomez v. Gonzales, 441 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. Apr. 3, 2006) (BIA erred in applying heightened exceptional and extremely unusual hardship standard in application for INA 209(c) waiver without first determining, on the basis of the underlying facts, whether conviction for statutory rape was a violent or dangerous crime).
Apr 96 Gen Co memo 96-5
Matter of Cruz, 15 I. & N. Dec. 236 (BIA 1974) requires an "affirmative communication" from the DHS to allow an IJ to terminate proceedings to allow a noncitizen to apply for naturalization. This requirement has arguably been superceded by current 8 C.F.R. 1239(f), which no longer requires an affirmative communication.
Tunis v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 547 (7th Cir. May 15, 2006) (Wisconsin conviction of two counts of selling less than a gram of cocaine, with two years suspended sentence, with seven months actual custody ordered, constituted aggravated felony drug trafficking convictions, under INA 101(a)(43)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(B), and thus particularly serious crimes under 8 U.S.C.