New Article:

"Arriving Aliens and Adjustment of Status: What is the Impact of the Governments Interim Rule of May 12, 2006" (Updated October 3, 2006). This practice advisory discusses the impact of an interim rule repealing two former regulations which barred all 'arriving aliens' - including parolees - from adjusting to permanent resident status if they were in removal proceedings and suggests steps that a parolee can take to benefit from the interim rule. AILF.org.

http://www.ailf.org/lac/ar_alien.pdf

New Article:

Applying for Adjustment of Status After Reentering the United States Without Being Admitted: I-212s, 245(i) and VAWA 2005 AILF Legal Action Center Practice Advisory, Updated Oct. 19, 2006. This Practice Advisory addresses inadmissibility for individuals who reenter the U.S. without admission and provides strategies for those individuals with adjustment of status applications under 245(i). The Advisory suggests arguments for challenging the BIA's decision Matter of Torres-Garcia and explains how VAWA 2005 can help.

http://www.ailf.org/lac/vawa_2005.pdf

Effective Nov. 1, 2006, 8 C.F.R. 1003.19(i)(2) is a final version of the interim rule first published in 2001 that allows an officer of the DHS to request an automatic stay of release from detention of a noncitizen an immigration judge has found is eligible for release on bond in a Matter of Joseph, 22 I. & N. Dec. 660 (BIA 1999) hearing. The new rule requires the DHS file a form EOIR-43 notice of intent to file appeal within one day of the IJs bond decision. The stay will lapse within 10 days unless the DHS actually files an appeal of the bond decision to the BIA.

United States v. Villegas-Hernandez, __ F.3d __, 2006 WL 3072558 (5th Cir. Oct. 31, 2006) (in determining whether offense trigger ground of removal, no reference may be made to the facts alleged in an indictment or information; analysis is limited to the set of statutory elements of which the noncitizen was found guilty), following United States v. Calderon-Pena, 383 F.3d 254 (5th Cir. 2004).

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/5th/0540988cr0p.pdf

United States v. Santiesteban-Hernandez, __ F.3d __, 2006 WL 3072564 (5th Cir. Oct. 31, 2006) (Texas conviction for violation of Penal Code 29.02(a)(1), robbery, is a crime of violence for illegal re-entry sentencing purposes, since the "crime of violence" definition, U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii), specifically includes "robbery" convictions, and the Texas offense falls within the generic definition of "robbery" [requiring theft and immediate danger to
a person]).

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/5th/0550399cr0p.pdf

Cisneros-Perez v. Gonzales, 451 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. June 26, 2006) (California conviction of simple battery, in violation of Penal Code 242, did not qualify as deportable domestic violence conviction, under INA 237(a)(2)(E)(i, 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(E)(i), where record of conviction did not establish necessary domestic relationship), opinion amended on denial of rehearing, ___ F.3d ___, 2006 WL 2819961 (9th Cir. Oct.

Gutnik v. Gonzales, 469 F.3d 683 (7th Cir. Nov. 29, 2006) (success in establishing persecution for purposes of withholding of removal necessarily implies standards for asylum have also been met; upon remand after determining conviction was not a particularly serious crime for asylum purposes, only remaining issue in asylum claim is whether asylum should be granted as a matter of discretion), following INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 448-449 (1987); Ghebremedhin v. Ashcroft, 392 F.3d 241, 244 (7th Cir. 2004).

Gutnik v. Gonzales, 469 F.3d 683 (7th Cir. Nov. 29, 2006) (deferring to BIAs determination that refugee status automatically terminates upon adjustment to LPR and therefore 209(c) waiver is unavailable to former refugee-LPR seeking to re-adjust to avoid removal).

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).

Gutnik v. Gonzales, 469 F.3d 683 (7th Cir. Nov. 29, 2006) (assuming jurisdiction exists to challenge BIA decision to streamline vs. sent to panel, regulations at 8 C.F.R. 1003.1(e) require "only that the BIA not review cases resolving novel issues by affirmance without opinion."; where any additional language given, the regulations do not apply), distinguishing Smirko v. Ashcroft, 387 F.3d 279 (3d Cir. 2004).