Gutnik v. Gonzales, 469 F.3d 683 (7th Cir. Nov. 29, 2006) (where BIA issues any language supporting decision of IJ beyond mere summary affirmance without opinion, Chevron deference must be given), distinguishing Smirko v. Ashcroft, 387 F.3d 279 (3d Cir. 2004).

Petrov v. Gonzales, 464 F.3d 800, 2006 WL 2846451 (7th Cir. Oct. 6, 2006) (aggravated felony conviction bars court of appeals, under 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(C) ["no court shall have jurisdiction to review any final order of removal against an alien who is removable by reason of having committed" an aggravated felony], from reviewing noncitizen's claims under the Convention), following Hamid v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 642 (7th Cir. 2005).

Petrov v. Gonzales, 464 F.3d 800, 2006 WL 2846451 (7th Cir. Oct. 6, 2006) (aggravated felony conviction bars court of appeals, under 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(C) ["no court shall have jurisdiction to review any final order of removal against an alien who is removable by reason of having committed" an aggravated felony], from reviewing noncitizen's claims under the Convention), following Hamid v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 642 (7th Cir. 2005).

Petrov v. Gonzales, 464 F.3d 800, 2006 WL 2846451 (7th Cir. Oct. 6, 2006) (question whether conviction constitutes a particularly serious crime, under 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(C), precluding political asylum or withholding of deportation, is held to be a discretionary decision not subject to petition for review jurisdiction in the court of appeals).

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/7th/054696p.pdf

Brue v. Gonzales, 464 F.3d 1227, 2006 WL 2831216 (10th Cir. Oct. 6, 2006) (petition for review from removal order denied, rejecting claim that because he met the statutory requirements for naturalization when his adoptive parents tendered an application on his behalf, he automatically acquired citizenship and was not subject to removal).

http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/10th/059569.html

Santamaria-Ames v. INS, 104 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 1996) (even a serious conviction or set of convictions that that occur outside the statutorily mandated period cannot serve as the sole basis to decline to find good moral character as a matter of discretion).

Matter of Ortega-Cabrera, 23 I. & N. Dec. 793, 797-798 (BIA 2005) (required ten years of good moral character "must include the time during which the respondent is in proceedings, i.e., until the issuance of an administratively final decision on the application.").

Petrov v. Gonzales, 464 F.3d 800, 2006 WL 2846451 (7th Cir. Oct. 6, 2006) ("Because Tunis did not mention that subject, it does not contain a holding on the issue. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 91, 118 S.Ct. 1003, 140 L.Ed.2d 210 (1998); United States v. L.A. Tucker Truck Lines, Inc., 344 U.S. 33, 38, 73 S.Ct. 67, 97 L.Ed. 54 (1952).").

Ahmed v. Gonzales, 465 F.3d 806 (7th Cir. Oct. 16, 2006) (fact that noncitizen was not currently eligible to apply for adjustment of status because he did not have a visa immediately available to him did not mean noncitizen was not entitled to apply for adjustment due to visa petition filed on his behalf; fact that visa was not yet current was not sufficient, in itself, to form basis of denial of a continuance to allow noncitizen to apply for adjustment once visa became available).

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/7th/053965p.pdf

Matter of Deandra-Romo, 23 I. & N. Dec. 597 (BIA 2003) (respondent, convicted of two misdemeanor crimes involving moral turpitude, is not precluded by INA 240A(d)(1)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1229b(d)(1)(B), from establishing the requisite seven years of continuous residence for cancellation of removal under INA 240A(a)(2), because his first crime, which qualified under the petty offense exception, did not render him inadmissible, and he had accrued the requisite seven years of continuous residence before the second offense was committed).