Augustin v. Attorney General, 520 F.3d 264 (3d Cir. Mar. 20, 2008) (BIA did not err in refusing to impute to a noncitizen who entered the United States as a minor the parent's years of continuous residence in order to meet the seven-year requirement for cancellation of removal), declining to follow Cuevas-Gaspar v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 1013 (9th Cir. 2005) (parent's preceding years of residence in the United States are imputed to a minor child in application for cancellation of removal) , and distinguishing Morel v. INS, 90 F.3d 833 (3d Cir.

Ahmed v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 579 (6th Cir. Mar. 20, 2008) (BIA abused discretion in denying a motion to remand to an IJ for further consideration of eligibility for adjustment of status as a "child" and immediate relative of an American citizen under the Child Status Protection Act and 8 U.S.C. 1255).

AILF Practice Advisory sets out arguments to challenge Matter of Acosta Hidalgo, a recent BIA decision holding that IJs and the BIA lack jurisdiction to determine prima facie eligibility for naturalization in order to terminate removal proceedings.
http://www.ailf.org/lac/pa/Acosta_Hidalgo_lac_pa_031808.pdf

Yusupov v. Attorney General, 518 F.3d 185 (3rd Cir. Mar 14, 2008, as amended Mar 27, 2008) (interpreting national security exception to withholding of removal claims, prohibiting withholding of removal if "there are serious reasons to believe that the alien committed a serious nonpolitical crime outside the United States," under INA 241(b)(3)(B)(iii)).

Momeni v. Chertoff, 521 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. Mar. 31, 2008) (persons who entered the United States under the Visa Waiver Program, who marry and apply for Adjustment of Status after their 90 days have elapsed, cannot obtain removal proceedings before being removed, and are ineligible to adjust status), distinguishing Freeman v. Gonzales, 1444 F.3d 1031 (9th Cir. 2006).

Orozco v. Mukasey, 521 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. Mar. 25, 2008) (fraudulent entry into United States bars adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C. 1255(a)). See American Immigration Law Foundation, Practice Advisory, Orozco v. Mukasey: Current Status of the Case and Preliminary Strategies (May 19, 2008). http://www.ailf.org/lac/lac_pa_topics.shtml.

James v. Mukasey, 522 F.3d 250 (2d Cir. Mar. 25, 2008) (remanding to the BIA to decide whether New York misdemeanor conviction of endangering the welfare of a child, in violation of Penal Law 260.10 ["knowingly acts in a manner likely to be injurious to the physical, mental or moral welfare of a child less than seventeen years old or directs or authorizes such child to engage in an occupation involving a substantial risk of danger to his life or health"], is a divisible statute).

United States v. Lopez-DeLeon, 513 F.3d 472 (5th Cir. Jan. 9, 2008) (California conviction of statutory rape, under Penal Code 261.5(c), was sexual abuse of a minor for illegal re-entry sentencing purposes, even though conviction statute was overbroad, where dismissed charge indicated that the victim was 14 years old).

Walcott v. Chertoff, 517 F.3d 149 (2d Cir. Feb. 19, 2008) (" 212(c) relief remains available to an alien ordered removed for a pre-AEDPA conviction that was on appeal when the AEDPA took effect, provided that the alien can prove detrimental reliance of the type recognized in Restrepo. Under Wilson, Petitioner is entitled to try and prove his Restrepo claim of reliance before an immigration judge."), see Wilson v. Gonzales, 471 F.3d 111 (2006).

Acevedo-Aguilar v. Gonzales, 517 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. Feb. 15, 2008) (noncitizen bears burden of establishing continuous presence for non-LPR cancellation purposes, including proving lack of absence from the United States for more than 90 days).