If the District Director terminates a refugee's Refugee Status under INA 207.9, and the ex-refugee is put into INA 240 removal proceedings, he apparently cannot contest that termination before the IJ, or in any other forum, because INA 207.9 states: "there is no appeal under this chapter from the termination of refugee status by the district director."

Hashish v. Gonzales, 442 F.3d 572 (7th Cir. Mar. 24, 2006) (timely request for pre-conclusion voluntary departure not alone sufficient to avoid stricter requirements of post-conclusion voluntary departure; other requirements of 8 U.S.C. 1240.26(b)(1)(i), including waiver of removal offenses or relief, must also be met).

Banda Oritz v. Gonzalez, __ F.3d __ (5th Cir. Mar. 28, 2006) (grant of a motion to reopen does not automatically stay a period of voluntary departure; noncitizen must additionally request stay or reinstatement of voluntary departure period), disagreeing with Azarte v. Ashcroft, 394 F.3d 1278 (9th Cir.2005); Kanivets v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 330 (3d Cir.2005); Sidikhouya v. Gonzales, 407 F.3d 950 (8th Cir.2005).

Lawrence v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 221 (1st Cir. May 5, 2006) (where pre-IIRAIRA conviction was vacated on a basis of legal invalidity, but replaced with a new plea after IIRAIRA that also triggers removal, a waiver under INA 212(c) is unavailable where the new plea was not entered nunc pro tunc).

Avendano-Espejo v. Department of Homeland Sec., __ F.3d __ (2d Cir. May 11, 2006) (court lacks jurisdiction to review discretionary denial of INA 212(c) relief).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/2nd/0340921p.pdf

Bugayong v. INS, 442 F.3d 67 (2d Cir. Mar. 15, 2006) (per curiam) (denial of adjustment of status and INA 212(h) waiver on discretionary basis not subject to judicial review; REAL ID Act of 2005, 106(a)(1)(A)(iii), Pub.L. No. 109-13, 119 Stat. 231, 310 (codified at 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(D)), does not override the jurisdiction-denying provision of 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B)(i)).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0256751p.pdf

When an administrative agency inexplicably departs from past practices, precedents, and/or established procedures, it abuses its discretion. Margalli-Olvera v. INS, 43 F.3d 345 (8th Cir. 1994) (BIA abused discretion by changing its position without explanation re: 212(c) tolling period); Gonzalez-Batoun v. INS, 791 F.2d 681 (9th Cir. 1986) (BIA abused discretion when it gave no reason for deviation from past practice); Salehpour v. INS, 761 F.2d 1442 (9th Cir. 1985) (abuse of discretion occurs where agency interpretation is inconsistent with its own regulations); Ke Zhen Zhao v. U. S.

Solano-Chicas v. Gonzales, 440 F.3d 1050 (8th Cir. Mar. 17, 2006) (where BIA reverses an immigration judge's ruling granting cancellation of removal, the BIA has authority to order removal directly without remand to the IJ).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/8th/043373p.pdf

Khan v. Attorney General, 448 F.3d 226 (3d Cir. May 22, 2006) (court of appeals jurisdiction to consider arguments that BIA erred in affirming denial of request for continuance of removal hearing as abuse of discretion and as a violation of due process).

Francis v. Gonzalez, 442 F.3d 131 (2d Cir. Mar. 27, 2006) (Special Agricultural Workers Program automatically adjusted applicants without regard to admissibility at the time of adjustment).