Puello v. BCIS, 511 F.3d 324, ___ (2d Cir. Dec. 20, 2007) (a criminal court's order withdrawing a plea eliminates the conviction for mmigration purposes; an interpretation of the statutory definition [of conviction to the ontrary] appears to lead to the bizarre result that a withdrawn guilty plea would still be a "conviction" for immigration purposes, because the "conviction" would be established on the date of the entry of the plea. We reject this reading because "[a] statute should be interpreted in a way that avoids absurd results."), citing United States v.

The language of INA 240(c)(3)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1229a(c)(3)(B), largely tracks that of a pre-existing regulation, 8 C.F.R.

Entry of a plea under North Carolina v. Alford, does not alter the immigration nature of the conviction, but it might make it easier for the court and prosecution to avoid insisting on making a record of the factual basis for the plea that would expand the nature of the conviction sufficiently to trigger a ground of deportation. Since an Alford plea is entered without any factual admission of guilt, the court and prosecution may allow entry of the plea without establishing any factual basis for the plea.

Entry of a plea under North Carolina v. Alford, does not alter the immigration nature of the conviction, but it might make it easier for the court and prosecution to avoid insisting on making a record of the factual basis for the plea that would expand the nature of the conviction sufficiently to trigger a ground of deportation. Since an Alford plea is entered without any factual admission of guilt, the court and prosecution may allow entry of the plea without establishing any factual basis for the plea.

Arteaga v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 940 (9th Cir. Dec. 27, 2007) (California conviction of unauthorized driving of a vehicle, in violation of Vehicle Code 10851(a), constitutes an aggravated felony theft offense, under INA 101(a)(43)(G), 8 U.S.C.

Puello v. BCIS, 511 F.3d 324 (2d Cir. Dec. 20, 2007) (under INA 101(f)(8), 8 U.S.C. 1101(f)(8), the date of conviction is the date of sentence: "In sum, we hold that, under the plain meaning of the definition of "conviction" in 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(48)(A), the entry of a "formal judgment of guilt . . . by a court" occurs when judgment is entered on the docket, not when a defendant pleads guilty."); see Perez v. Elwood, 294 F.3d 552, 562 (3d Cir. 2002) (the date of conviction under the INA is the date of either sentencing or entry of judgment on the docket); Abimbola v.

National Cable & Telecommunications Ass'n v. Brand X Internet Services, 545 U.S. 967, 982-983, 125 S.Ct. 2688 (June 27, 2005) ("A court's prior judicial construction of a statute trumps an agency construction otherwise entitled to Chevron deference only if the prior court decision holds that its construction follows from the unambiguous terms of the statute and thus leaves no room for agency discretion. . . .

The regulations provide that departure from the United States under an order of deportation, or while a removal order is on appeal to the BIA, shall render the immigration judges decision final and bar any motion to reopen or reconsider. 8 C.F.R. 1003.2(d), 1003.4. However, many circuits have challenged the validity of these regulations. William v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 329 (4th Cir. 2007) (first sentence of 8 C.F.R. 1003.2(d) is ultra vires to statute); Lin v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2007); Reynoso-Cisneros v. Gonzales, 491 F.3d 1001 (9th Cir.

Estrada-Rodriguez v. Mukasey, __ F.3d __, 2007 WL 4554053 (9th Cir. Dec. 28, 2007) (Arizona conviction for resisting arrest, in violation of Arizona Revised Statutes 13-2508 categorically constitutes an aggravated felony crime of violence for immigration purposes, since the first subsection of that statute requires the element of use of force, and the second subsection requires a substantial risk that force will be used in the commission of the offense, mirroring 18 U.S.C. 16(a) and (b) respectively).

Arteaga v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 940 (9th Cir. Dec. 27, 2007) ("The BIA's statutory interpretation is entitled to deference, but the court is not obligated to accept an interpretation clearly contrary to the plain and sensible meaning of a statute."), citing Kankamalage v. INS, 335 F.3d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 2003).