United States v. Chavez-Diaz, 444 F.3d 1223 (10th Cir. Apr. 18, 2006) (noncitizen sentenced to 4-6 years for delivery of a controlled substance, with a further court order suggesting immediate deportation if deemed appropriate by the DHS, and actually deported 26 days later, is considered to have been sentenced to 6 years imprisonment for purposes of illegal re-entry sentencing enhancement; court rejected argument that order for immediate deportation was essentially an alternative suspended sentence).

Yepez-Razo v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 1216 (9th Cir. Apr. 24, 2006) (lawful permanent resident was able to show lawful residence in the United States for purposes of INA 212(h) relief despite out of status period because she was prima facie eligible for Family Unity treatment, and the out of status period was caused in part by an improper denial of the relief by the INS; any period under the Family Unity program is not to be counted as unlawful presence. INA 212(a)(9)(B)(iii)(III)).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0372005p.pdf

United States v. Camacho-Lopez, 450 F.3d 928 (9th Cir. May 30, 2006) (California conviction for vehicular manslaughter, in violation of California Penal Code 191.5(a) is not an aggravated felony crime of violence, in light of Leocal, for immigration purposes; Immigration Judge therefore improperly advised noncitizen that he was not eligible for relief; conviction for illegal re-entry following removal therefore cannot be sustained.)

United States v. Lopez, 445 F.3d 90 (2d Cir. Apr. 4, 2006) (for purposes of brining a collateral attack of the underlying deportation order in prosecution for illegal re-entry, the IJ and BIA affirmatively misleading the noncitizen regarding eligibility for relief resulted in an improper denial of the opportunity for judicial review, as required to bring a collateral attack under 8 U.S.C. 1326(d)).

United States v. Chavez-Diaz, 444 F.3d 1223 (10th Cir. Apr. 18, 2006) (noncitizen sentenced to 4-6 years for delivery of a controlled substance, with a further court order suggesting immediate deportation if deemed appropriate by the DHS, and actually deported 26 days later, is considered to have been sentenced to 6 years imprisonment for purposes of illegal re-entry sentencing enhancement; court rejected argument that order for immediate deportation was essentially an alternative suspended sentence).

Momin v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 447 (5th Cir. Apr. 25, 2005) (8 C.F.R. section 245.1(c)(8), which deems arriving aliens who are in removal proceedings ineligible to apply for adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident, is not ultra vires to INA 245).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/5th/0560119cv0p.pdf

Matter of Villareal-Zuniga, 23 I. & N. Dec. 886 (BIA 2006) (an application for adjustment of status cannot be based on an approved visa petition that has already been used by the beneficiary to obtain adjustment or admission as an immigrant).
http://www.usdoj.gov/eoir/vll/intdec/vol23/3527.pdf

Pede v. Gonzales, 442 F.3d 570 (7th Cir. Mar. 24, 2006) (immigration judge is not required to continue proceedings to allow the USICE to process an adjustment application where the respondent is clearly not statutorily eligible to adjust).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/7th/051897p.pdf

Martinez v. U.S. Atty Gen., 446 F.3d 1219 (11th Cir. Apr. 21, 2006) (exceptional and extremely unusual hardship requirement for non-LPR cancellation of removal is a discretionary issue, and judicial review is therefore barred).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/11th/0416740p.pdf

Matter of Bautista-Gomez, 23 I. & N. Dec. 893 (BIA 2006) (8 C.F.R. 1003.23(b)(3) (2005), providing an applicant for cancellation of removal under INA 240A(b) must demonstrate statutory eligibility for that relief prior to the service of a notice to appear, applies only to the continuous physical presence requirement and has no bearing on the issues of qualifying relatives, hardship, or good moral character).