One possible way to obtain return of noncitizen wrongfully removed would be to negotiate a "deal" under which the U.S. Government flies the client back to the USA, admits the client to USA, and allows the client to adjust status in exchange for client waiving suit and fees against the United States. Thanks to Beryl B. Farris, Atlanta.

United States v. Juvenile Male, 492 F.3d 1046 (9th Cir. July 5, 2007) (reversing district court order granting government motion to transfer a juvenile case alleging second degree murder to adult criminal prosecution pursuant to the Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act where district court made clearly erroneous findings concerning defendant's social background).

United States v. Snellenberger, 493 F.3d 1015, ___n.5, (9th Cir. Jul. 10, 2007) (while an abstract of judgment or minute order cannot be used to establish the nature of a conviction, those documents can be used to establish the existence of a conviction; court distinguished between evidentiary law treating abstract of judgment and minute orders as accurate in the absence of contrary evidence and the question of meeting government's burden in demonstrating nature of conviction), amending 480 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 2007).

United States v. Snellenberger, 493 F.3d 1015, ___n.5, (9th Cir. Jul. 10, 2007) ("As the Supreme Court noted when ruling that complaints and police reports could not be considered, the defendant was never asked if the information contained in the reports was true or accurately reflected his plea. For the same reason, a minute order cannot establish the factual elements underlying a plea to a prior offense.")

United States v. Snellenberger, 493 F.3d 1015, ___n.5, (9th Cir. Jul. 10, 2007) (even though government presented information containing count charging first-degree burglary, and the court recognized that a conviction of first degree burglary "necessarily encompasses all factual elements of burglary of a dwelling," the court still found minute order indicating a plea to "459 Penal Code (first degree)" insufficient to establish that the plea was in fact to burglary of a dwelling).

DOS cable dated July 7, 2007: "This cable clarifies how consular officers should handle cases where an applicants' criminal record shows an arrest or conviction for drunk driving or other alcohol related offence."
http://travel.state.gov/visa/laws/telegrams/telegrams_3267.html

United States v. Gomez-Gomez, 493 F.3d 562 (5th Cir. Jul. 20, 2007) (California conviction for forcible rape, in violation of California Penal Code 261 (1990), is not necessarily a crime of violence for illegal re-entry sentencing purposes, since "[a] subsection of that statute defines duress as a direct or implied threat of force, violence, danger, hardship, or retribution sufficient to coerce a reasonable person of ordinary susceptibilities to perform an act which otherwise would not have been performed, or acquiesce in an act to which one otherwise would not have submitted. Id.

Awad v. Gonzales, __ F.3d __, 2007 WL 2067857 (8th Cir. Jul. 20, 2007) (Minnesota misdemeanor conviction for transportation of a loaded firearm, in violation of Minnesota Statute 97B.045, constituted a deportable firearms offense under INA 237(a)(2)(C); court rejected argument that offense fit within sporting exception under 18 U.S.C. 921(a); the sporting exception applies only to "destructive devices," as defined by 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(4), not firearms under 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(3)), disagreeing with Lemus-Rodriguez v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 652 (7th Cir. 2003).

Saleh v. Gonzales, ___ F.3d ___, 2007 WL 2033497 (2d Cir. July 17, 2007) (amendment of the removable conviction was secured solely to aid petitioner in avoiding immigration consequences and was not based on any procedural or substantive defect in the original conviction; BIA did not violate full faith and credit by failing to honor the amendment, since post-conviction motion stated it was brought for immigration purposes and failed to identify any substantive or procedural defects in the conviction), citing Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 542 n.1 (2d Cir. 2005).

Saleh v. Gonzales, ___ F.3d ___, ___ n.4, 2007 WL 2033497 (2d Cir. July 17, 2007) ("the Government bears the burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that Saleh is removable . . . ."), citing 8 U.S.C. 1229a(c)(3)(A); Zerrei v. Gonzales, 471 F.3d 342, 345 (2d Cir. 2006) (per curiam); see also Pickering v. Gonzales, 465 F.3d 263, 268-69 (6th Cir. 2006), vacating Matter of Pickering, 23 I. & N. Dec. 621 (BIA 2003); Cruz-Garza v. Ashcroft, 396 F.3d 1125, 1130 (10th Cir. 2005).