Afridi v. Gonzales, 442 F.3d 1212 (9th Cir. Apr. 4, 2006) (Court of appeals has jurisdiction under REAL ID Act to review question of law whether BIA applied proper legal standard to determine whether conviction constituted a "particularly serious crime" for purposes of withholding of removal).

McAllister v. United States Atty Gen., 444 F.3d 178 (3d Cir. Apr. 10, 2006) (INA 237(a)(4)(B) ground of removal based upon terrorism is not listed in INA 242(a)(2)(C), and therefore does not bar court from judicial review).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/3rd/034513p.pdf

Huerta v. Ashcroft, 443 F.3d 753 (10th Cir. Apr. 11, 2006) (thirty day deadline to appeal IJ decision to the BIA is not jurisdictional; if BIA grants a late appeal neither the BIA nor a reviewing court of appeals is barred by an untimely filing of a notice to appeal to the BIA).
http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/10th/049542.html

Hadwani v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 798 (5th Cir. Apr. 10, 2006) (court lacked jurisdiction to review discretionary denial of adjustment of status; constitutional claims presented were without merit).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/5th/0560066cv0p.pdf

McAllister v. United States Atty Gen., 444 F.3d 178 (3d Cir. Apr. 10, 2006) (for purposes of jurisdictional bar at 8 U.S.C. section 1252(a)(2)(C), a noncitizen is not "removable for reason of having committed [an enumerated] criminal offense" unless the final order of removal is grounded, at least in part, on one of those enumerated offenses).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/3rd/034513p.pdf

Suvorov v. Gonzales, 441 F.3d 618 (8th Cir. Mar. 28, 2006) (courts lack jurisdiction to review questions of fact underlying discretionary decisions of the Attorney General involving waivers of inadmissibility or hardship waivers for purposes of relief from removal).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/8th/043911p.pdf

Avendano-Espejo v. Department of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 503 (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

Valencia v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 1046, 1050 n.4, (9th Cir. Mar. 6, 2006) (California conviction of unlawful sexual intercourse with a person under 18 years of age, who is more than three years younger than the perpetrator, in violation of California Penal Code 261.5(c), does not trigger removal where the charge in the NTA that the conviction constituted a sexual abuse of a minor aggravated felony, under INA 101(a)(43)(A), 8 U.S.C.

When an administrative agency inexplicably departs from past practices, precedents, and/or established procedures, it abuses its discretion. Margalli-Olvera v. INS, 43 F.3d 345 (8th Cir. 1994) (BIA abused discretion by changing its position without explanation re: 212(c) tolling period); Gonzalez-Batoun v. INS, 791 F.2d 681 (9th Cir. 1986) (BIA abused discretion when it gave no reason for deviation from past practice); Salehpour v. INS, 761 F.2d 1442 (9th Cir. 1985) (abuse of discretion occurs where agency interpretation is inconsistent with its own regulations); Ke Zhen Zhao v. U. S.

Bugayong v. INS, 442 F.3d 67 (2d Cir. Mar. 15, 2006) (per curiam) (denial of adjustment of status and INA 212(h) waiver on discretionary basis not subject to judicial review; REAL ID Act of 2005, 106(a)(1)(A)(iii), Pub.L. No. 109-13, 119 Stat. 231, 310 (codified at 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(D)), does not override the jurisdiction-denying provision of 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B)(i)).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0256751p.pdf