Matter of Wang, 23 I. & N. Dec. 924 (BIA May 25, 2006) (noncitizen whose adjustment application under the Chinese Student Protection Act was filed prior to the October 1, 1994 start of INA 245(i) application processing may not transfer the CSPA application into a INA 245(i) application). http://www.usdoj.gov/eoir/vll/intdec/vol23/3533.pdf
Matter of Wang, 23 I. & N. Dec. 924 (BIA May 25, 2006) (noncitizen who entered the United States without inspection is not eligible for adjustment of status under the Chinese Student Protection Act of 1992, Pub. L. No. 102-404, 106 Stat. 1969).
Scheerer v. United States Atty Gen., 445 F.3d 1311 (11th Cir. Apr. 13, 2006) (8 C.F.R. 1245.1(c)(8), which prohibits petitioner from applying for change of status as an arriving alien in removal proceedings, is ultra vires to INA 245(a), and therefore invalid).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/11th/0416231p.pdf
Freeman v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 1031 (9th Cir. Apr. 21, 2006) (Bar to review of denial of benefits for those who entered United States via Visa Waiver Program does not apply to noncitizen who has filed an adjustment of status application as an immediate relative).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0435797p.pdf
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).