Ali v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 478 (2d Cir. June 18, 2008) (counsels acknowledgement on the record that IJs decision was "final" signified that counsel had waived appeal to the BIA).

United States v. Becerril-Lopez, 541 F.3d 881 (9th Cir. Aug. 29, 2008) (immigration judge was not required to give advice of availability of pre-hearing voluntary departure, under pre-IIRAIRA law, because the relief would have been granted prior to the respondents appearance before the IJ).
Note: The court gave no opinion on the possible outcome of this issue had post-IIRAIRA rules applied, which allow the IJ to grant "pre-hearing" voluntary departure at the master calendar hearing. INA 240B(a)(1).

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/ICE_FOIA.pdf

Flores-Juarez v. Mukasey, 530 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. Jun. 26, 2008) (the bar to non-LPR cancellation of removal for noncitizens who fall within certain criminal grounds of removal, under INA 240A(b)(C), applies regardless of the date of the conviction; the 10-year Good Moral Character requirement under INA 240A(b)(B) does not also impose a 10 year limit on the period in which the criminal convictions must have occurred).

Matter of Gonzalez-Zoquiapan, 24 I. & N. Dec. 549 (BIA Jun. 25, 2008) (reaffirming that CMT offense that falls within petty offense exception to inadmissibility does not create bar to good moral character), following Matter of Garcia-Hernandez, 23 I. & N. Dec. 590, 593 (BIA 2003).

A new AILF Practice Advisory entitled "The Fugitive Disentitlement Doctrine: FOIA and Petitions for Review" is now available. This practice advisory examines how DHS invokes the fugitive disentitlement doctrine to deny FOIA requests and how courts apply the doctrine to dismiss petitions for review. The advisory provides arguments to challenge the doctrine in both contexts. Access this resource on the AILF website at http://www.ailf.org/lac/pa/lac_pa_fugdis.pdf.

AILF has issued a new Practice Advisory that addresses Orozco v. Mukasey, 521 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2008), its current status, and preliminary strategies and arguments - both within and outside of the Ninth Circuit - to avoid its negative impact. In Orozco, the Ninth Circuit held that a non-citizen who obtains entry into the U.S. by fraudulent means is statutorily ineligible for adjustment of status under INA 245(a) because he or she has not been "admitted."
See http://www.ailf.org/lac/pa/orozco-pa.pdf

Matter of ASB, 24 I. & N, Dec. 493 (BIA 2008) (Board of Immigration Appeals should defer to the factual findings of an Immigration Judge, unless they are clearly erroneous; BIA retains independent judgment and discretion, subject to applicable governing standards, regarding pure questions of law and the application of a particular standard of law to those facts).

Matter of VK, 24 I. & N. Dec. 500 (BIA 2008) (the BIA reviews de novo an IJs finding regarding the likelihood that a noncitizen will be tortured, since that finding relates to whether the statutory requirement for establishing eligibility for relief from removal has been met and is therefore a mixed question of law and fact).

Ochieng v. Mukasey, 520 F.3d 1110, 1114-15 (10th Cir. 2008) (the definition of "child abuse" under INA 237(a)(2)(E)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(E)(i), set forth in dictum in a precedent BIA decision, was entitled to deference because it was based on a permissible construction of the statute), applying Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842-43 (1984); accord Loeza-Dominguez v. Gonzales, 428 F.3d 1156 (8th Cir. 2005); but cf. Velasquez-Herrera v. Gonzales, 466 F.3d 781, 783 (9th Cir.