Spina v. Department of Homeland Sec., __ F.3d __, 2006 WL 3431918 (2d Cir. Nov. 28, 2006) (Pre-conviction detention counts toward five-year imprisonment bar to 212(c) relief, at least where time spent in pre-conviction detention is credited against post-conviction term).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/2nd/043177p.pdf

Spina v. Department of Homeland Sec., 470 F.3d 116 (2d Cir. Nov. 28, 2006) (court maintains jurisdiction to review order of removal even after petition has been physically removed from the United States) following, Swaby v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 156, 161 (2d Cir. 2004).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/2nd/043177p.pdf

http://www.hro.house.state.tx.us/focus/immigration79-12.pdf

"The first amendment adds Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1, which will require all federal appellate courts to allow citation to their own unpublished and non-precedential opinions issued on or after Jan. 1, 2007." Howard Bashman, Nov. 27, 2006.
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1164189923012

Nath v. Gonzales, 467 F.3d 1185 (9th Cir. Nov. 3, 2006) (BIA acted arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to law in denying motion to reopen removal proceedings after conviction had been vacated, even where order vacating conviction did not specify whether the conviction was vacated on ground of invalidity or solely for rehabilitative or immigration purposes).

Nath v. Gonzales, ___ F.3d ___, 2006 WL 3110424 (9th Cir. Nov. 3, 2006) (BIA acted arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to law in denying motion to reopen removal proceedings after conviction had been vacated, even where order vacating conviction did not specify whether the conviction was vacated on ground of invalidity or solely for rehabilitative or immigration purposes).

Nath v. Gonzales, 467 F.3d 1185 (9th Cir. November 3, 2006)(court of appeals standard of review of denial of motion to reopen removal proceedings after conviction has been vacated: "We review the BIA's ruling on the motion to reopen for an abuse of discretion and will reverse the denial of the motion to reopen only if the BIA acted " arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to law. " Maravilla Maravilla v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 855, 857 (9th Cir.2004) (quoting Singh v. INS, 213 F.3d 1050, 1052 (9th Cir.2000)).").

Nath v. Gonzales, ___ F.3d ___, 2006 WL 3110424 (9th Cir. Nov.

"Arriving aliens" in removal proceedings are now eligible to apply for adjustment with USCIS under the interim rule. 71 Fed. Reg. 27585 (May 12, 2006). The interim rule, effective on May 12, 2006, deleted the absolute bar on an "arriving alien's" ability to adjust status in removal proceedings. Prior to the issuance of the interim rule, several courts of appeals had struck down the former regulation barring adjustment, finding that it violated the statute.

Courts of appeals have petition for review jurisdiction to review an Immigration Judges denial of a continuance in removal proceedings. Abu-Khaliel v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 627 (6th Cir. 2006)(court of appeals has petition for review jurisdiction over question of error in denying continuance in removal proceedings); Subhan v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 591 (7th Cir. 2004) (court of appeals has jurisdiction to review denial of continuance; unapproved labor certification alone does not provide a sufficient basis for denying a continuance); Zafar v. Attorney General, 461 F.3d 1357 (11th Cir.