Suazo Perez v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1222 (9th Cir. Jan. 22, 2008) (noncitizen's "decision to incorporate the police report into his guilty plea made the report "an explicit statement in which the factual basis for the plea was confirmed by the defendant." Thus, in this circumstance, "relying upon the [police report] to establish the elements of the crime" of conviction "does not undermine the purposes of our limited modified categorical inquiry."), citing Parrilla v. Gonzales, 414 F.3d 1038, 1044 (9th Cir.

Two possible solutions for Vietnamese nationals who are now or in future may be subjected to deportation are as follows:


    (a) A grant of a U visa for certain crime victims can constitute a defense even where the immigrant has a final orders of removal.

Matter of Martinez-Zapata, 24 I. & N. Dec. 424 (BIA 2007) (waiver of inadmissibility under INA 212(h), 8 U.S.C.

Yang v. Mukasey, __ F.3d __, 2008 WL 248542 (2d Cir. Jan. 31, 2008) (court lacks jurisdiction to review question of whether criminal conviction is a crime of moral turpitude where the Immigration Judge also found, independently from the crime of moral turpitude, that the noncitizen was additionally ineligible for qualifying relief as a matter of discretion).

United States v. Pacheco-Diaz, ___ F.3d ___, 2008 WL 220692 (7th Cir. Jan. 29, 2008) (opinion on denial of rehearing) (Illinois second conviction of simple possession of marijuana constitutes a drug trafficking aggravated felony, within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43), for purposes of imposing a sentence enhancement for illegal reentry under USSG 2L1.2(b)(1)(C), because 21 U.S.C. 844(a) treats possessing marijuana that way if the defendant already has one marijuana-possession conviction on his record), disagreeing with Matter of
Carachuri-Rosendo, 24 I. & N. Dec.

United States v. Vidal, 504 F.3d 1072, 1087-1088 (9th Cir. Oct. 10, 2007) ("Moreover, in the context of a People v. West plea, "[a] court is not limited to accepting a guilty plea only to the offense charged but can accept a guilty plea to any reasonably related lesser offense." People v. Tuggle, 232 Cal.App.3d 147, 283 Cal.Rptr. 422, 426 n. 10 (Ct.App.1991) (rejecting reliance on the fact that the offense was charged in the conjunctive because the prosecutor could have amended the information before the plea) (citing West, 91 Cal.Rptr.

United States v. Vidal, 504 F.3d 1072, 1087-1088 (9th Cir. Oct. 10, 2007) ("Moreover, in the context of a People v. West plea, "[a] court is not limited to accepting a guilty plea only to the offense charged but can accept a guilty plea to any reasonably related lesser offense." People v. Tuggle, 232 Cal.App.3d 147, 283 Cal.Rptr. 422, 426 n. 10 (Ct.App.1991) (rejecting reliance on the fact that the offense was charged in the conjunctive because the prosecutor could have amended the information before the plea) (citing West, 91 Cal.Rptr.

Wala v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. Dec. 12, 2007) ("However improbable, Wala could have been taking the jewelry with the intent to loan it to his girlfriend for one "night on the town" and then return it. Or, he could have been taking the credit cards with the intent to use them for a one-time identification purpose. The point is that either would have been sufficient to sustain Wala's guilty plea and conviction under Connecticut penal law.

Wala v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. Dec. 12, 2007) ("We have held that the BIA cannot adjudicate the facts in a criminal case to determine whether, standing alone, they suggest that the petitioner committed a removable offense. See Sui v. INS, 250 F.3d 105, 119 (2d Cir.2001) (emphasizing that the BIA cannot assume the position of factfinder).

Burke v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 102 (5th Cir. Dec. 10, 2007) (New York conviction of criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, in violation of N.Y. Penal Law 165.50 ["knowingly possesses stolen property, with intent to benefit himself or a person other than an owner thereof or to impede the recovery by an owner thereof, and when the value of the property exceeds three thousand dollars."], qualifies as a "theft offense" within the meaning of INA 101(a)(43)(G), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(G)).