If restitution is ordered, even in excess of $10,000, for losses specifically noted as flowing from “relevant conduct that was not charged," it would not qualify a fraud offense as an aggravated felony. Thanks to Mat Millen for this argument.

Kumarasamy v. Attorney General, 453 F.3d 169 (3d Cir. Jun. 23, 2006) (appeal from denial of writ of habeas corpus challenging deportation, on the basis that no deportation order existed, cannot be converted to a petition for direct review of a removal order under the REAL ID Act; REAL ID Act only applies only to cases where noncitizen seeks review of a final order of removal).

Obale v. Atty Gen. of the US, __ F.3d __ (3d Cir. Jun. 22, 2006) (court of appeals has jurisdiction to stay a grant of voluntary departure granted by BIA). http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/3rd/051109p.pdf

Kumarasamy v. Atty Gen. of the US, __ F.3d __ (3d Cir. Jun. 23, 2006) (petitioners who have already been removed from the United States do not satisfy the "in custody" requirement for habeas corpus jurisdiction).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/3rd/052323p.pdf

Rosales-Pineda v. Gonzales, ___ F.3d ___, 2006 WL 1667695 (7th Cir. Jun. 19, 2006) (FBI rap sheet indicating conviction of a controlled substances offense, in conjunction with corroborating evidence, "reasonably indicated the existence of a criminal conviction," and was therefore sufficient to establish that noncitizen was ineligible for relief under INA 212(h)). See 8 C.F.R. 1003.41(d).

Rosales-Pineda v. Gonzales, 452 F.3d 627 (7th Cir. Jun. 19, 2006) (FBI rap sheet indicating conviction of a controlled substances offense, in conjunction with corroborating evidence, "reasonably indicated the existence of a criminal conviction," and was therefore sufficient to establish that noncitizen was ineligible for relief under INA 212(h)). See 8 C.F.R. 1003.41(d).

Padilla-Caldera v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 1294 (10th Cir. Jun. 19, 2006) (INA 245(i) allows certain persons to adjust status even if they are inadmissible under INA 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(I) for having been unlawfully present in the United States for over one year).
http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/10th/049573.html

Vargas v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 451 F.3d 1105 (10th Cir. Jun. 21, 2006) (court does not have jurisdiction to review validity of underlying criminal conviction in petition for review of immigration removal order).

Vargas v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., ___ F.3d ___ 2006 WL 1689293 (10th Cir. Jun. 21, 2006) (Colorado conviction of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, in violation of CRS 18-6-701, may be violated by encouraging a child to violated any state law, from jaywalking to murder; since conviction under this statute requires proof, as an element of the offense, of a specified predicate offense, it was proper to look to the charging document to determine the predicate offense; violation of CRS 18-6-701 where the predicate offense was a violation of C.R.S.

Vargas v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., ___ F.3d ___ 2006 WL 1689293 (10th Cir. Jun. 21, 2006) (Colorado conviction of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, in violation of CRS 18-6-701, may be violated by encouraging a child to violated any state law, from jaywalking to murder; since conviction under this statute requires proof, as an element of the offense, of a specified predicate offense, it was proper to look to the charging document to determine the predicate offense; violation of CRS 18-6-701 where the predicate offense was a violation of C.R.S.