Vakker v. Att'y Gen., 519 F.3d 143 (3d Cir. Mar. 14, 2008) ("Certainly, orders denying motions to remand, like orders denying motions to reopen or reconsider, can qualify as independent final orders over which this court can, in appropriate circumstances, assume jurisdiction. See Korytnyuk v. Ashcroft, 396 F.3d 272, 279-83 (3d Cir. 2005); Shardar v. Attorney General, 503 F.3d 308, 311-12 (3d Cir. 2007); Cruz v. Attorney General, 452 F.3d 240, 246 (3d Cir. 2006); Sevoian v. Ashcroft, 290 F.3d 166, 169-75 (3d Cir. 2002).").

A K-1 Fiance visa shall not be issued unless the applicant provides "information on any criminal convictions of the petitioner for any" crime specified in the regulations. INA 214(d)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1184(d)(1). The consular officer shall not approve a petition unless the officer has verified that the petitioner has not previously petitioned for two persons, and that at least two years have elapsed since any previously approved petition. INA 214(d)(1)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1184(d)(1)(A). Waiver.

The TPS statute, INA 244(c)(2)(A)(iii)(I), 8 U.S.C. 1254a(c)(2)(A)(iii)(I), states the Attorney General cannot waive INA 212(a)(2)(A) grounds of inadmissibility (controlled substance and CMT), for TPS applicants. The very next paragraph, however, provides the Attorney General cannot waive inadmissibility under INA 212(a)(2)(C)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)(C)(i) (reason to believe illicit drug trafficking), "except for ... a single offense of simple possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana." INA 244(c)(2)(A)(iii)(II), 8 U.S.C. 1254a(c)(2)(A)(iii)(I).

James v. Mukasey, 522 F.3d 250 (2d Cir. Mar. 25, 2008) ("We reminded the District Court that "[f]actual matters considered as a basis for sentence must have some minimal indicium of reliability beyond mere allegation," and that "an indictment is not meant to serve an evidentiary function. Its primary purpose is to acquaint the defendant with the specific crime with which he is charged...." Id. at 701 (internal quotations marks omitted) (alteration in original).

James v. Mukasey, 522 F.3d 250 (2d Cir. Mar. 25, 2008) (determination of whether criminal statute under which alien was convicted was divisible, such that facts surrounding conviction could be considered in determining whether noncitizen committed aggravated felony, would be left to BIA in first instance).

James v. Mukasey, 522 F.3d 250 (2d Cir. Mar. 25, 2008) ("We must defer to the BIA's determination, in accordance with the Supreme Court's decision in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842-43, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984), when our jurisdiction depends on the definition of a phrase used in the INA, a statute that the BIA administers, and "when the intent of Congress is unclear and the agency's interpretation is reasonable." . . .

Medellin v. Texas, ___ U.S. ___, 128 S.Ct. 1346 (Mar. 25, 2008) (neither an International Court of Justice case, Case Concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mex. v. U. S.), 2004 I. C. J. 12, nor a memorandum issued by the President of the United States constitutes directly enforceable federal law that pre-empts state limitations on the filing of successive habeas petitions, affirming dismissal of a habeas petition in a death penalty case raising a claim that petitioner was not informed of his Vienna Convention right to notify the Mexican consulate of his detention).

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).

Graham v. Mukasey, ___ F.3d ___ (6th Cir. Mar. 20, 2008) (expedited removal procedure, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1228(b), violated neither due process not equal protection rights).