United States v. Elrawy, __ F.3d __, 2006 WL 1085165 (5th Cir. Apr. 26, 2006) (18 U.S.C. 922(g)(5)(B), punishing possession of a firearm by a nonimmigrant visa entrant, does not apply to a nonimmigrant visa entrant who is out of status).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/5th/0420123cr0p.pdf

United States v. Elrawy, __ F.3d __, 2006 WL 1085165 (5th Cir. Apr. 26, 2006) (18 U.S.C. 922(g)(5)(A), prohibiting possession of a firearm by a noncitizen who entered the United States illegally or is out of status applies to a noncitizen who is out of status, but has had an I-130 visa petition filed on his behalf).

Doe v. ICE, __ F.Supp.2d __, 2006 WL 1294440 (S.D.N.Y. May 10, 2006) ("Information relating to persons subject to a civil order of deportation does not automatically qualify as a crime record. The Government must show that the person "willfully" violated the statute to warrant entry as part of a criminal record. See, e.g., 8 U.S.C. 1253(a)(1) (criminal penalties for "willful" failure to depart after entry of a removal order); 8 U.S.C. 1306 (criminal penalties for "willful" failure to comply with registration requirements). . . .

Francis v. Gonzalez, __ F.3d __, 2006 WL 768549 (2d Cir. Mar. 27, 2006) (Jamaican rap sheet contained in police report was, by itself, insufficient to demonstrate the existence of a "conviction" for immigration purposes, since the document by itself did not show adjudication of guilt; commentary to 8 C.F.R. 1003.41(d) suggests rap sheets admissible but not conclusive).

Salinas v. United States, 547 U. S. ___, 2006 WL 1059408 (Apr. 24, 2006) (per curiam) (conviction for simple possession of a controlled substance did not constitute a "controlled substance offense" for purposes of United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual 4B1.1(a) (2003), since that term requires additional elements: "controlled substance offense" is defined in pertinent part, however, as "an offense under federal or state law . . . that prohibits . . .

Matter of Huang, 19 I. & N. Dec. 749, 754 (BIA 1988) ("While the burden of proving admissibility is generally on the applicant in exclusion proceedings, see section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1361 (1982), where an applicant for admission has a colorable claim to returning resident status, the burden is on the Service to show that the applicant should be deprived of his or her status as a lawful permanent resident. Matter of Salazar, 17 I & N Dec. 167 (BIA 1979); Matter of Kane, [15 I & N Dec 258 (BIA 1975)]").

Where LPR who is not deportable briefly leaves the United States, it would arguably violate Substantive Due Process and Equal Protection to consider him or her an arriving alien, and thus inadmissible, and the court must seek a construction of INA 101(a)(13)(C)(v) which avoids these constitutional problems. Note that INA 101(a)(13)(C)(v) contains no exceptions for people granted waivers under INA 212(c), 212(i), or former suspension of deportation under 244.

Belliss, Consequences Of A Court-Martial Conviction For United States Service Members Who Are Not United States Citizens, 51 NAVAL L. REV. 53, 57 n.23 (2005) ("Whether the finding of guilty and imposition of punishment by a summary court-martial officer against an accused amounts to a conviction for immigration purposes is likely answered in the negative. See Middendorf v. Henry, 425 U.S. 25, 40-42 (1976).

United States v. Berumen, __ M.J. __ (C.M.A.

Mutascu v. Gonzales, __ F.3d __ (5th Cir. Apr. 3, 2006) (California conviction of petty theft with a prior, in violation of Penal Code 666, with one-year sentence imposed is an aggravated felony theft offense), rejecting United States v. Corona-Sanchez, 291 F.3d 1201 (9th Cir. 2002).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/5th/0460708cv0p.pdf