June, 2007 ACLU briefing on conditions of confinement in immigration detention centers. "This briefing paper explains the domestic standards for detention conditions and demonstrates the pervasive problems with conditions of confinement that immigration detainees face in jails and detention facilities across the country.

Matter of Gonzalez-Silva, 24 I.& N. Dec. 218, 220 (BIA 2007) (conviction occurring prior to the effective date of INA 237(a)(2)(E), 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(E) (2000), is not "convicted of an offense under" that section and therefore is not barred from establishing eligibility for cancellation of removal by INA 240A(b)(1)(C), 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)(1)(C)(2000).).
http://www.usdoj.gov/eoir/vll/intdec/vol24/3570.pdf

United States v. Grisel, 488 F.3d 844 (9th Cir. Jun. 5, 2007) (en banc) (Oregon conviction of second-degree burglary, in violation of Or.Rev.Stat. 164.215(1), is not a categorical burglary for purposes of the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(1), to apply a sentence enhancement requiring a minimum of 180 months in prison, because it encompasses burglary of non-buildings, and therefore falls outside the federal definition of generic burglary), overruling United States v. Cunningham, 911 F.2d 361 (9th Cir.

United States v. Grisel, 488 F.3d 844 (9th Cir. Jun. 5, 2007) (en banc) (prior convictions are not elements of offense, and need not be pleaded or found beyond reasonable doubt by jury, to impose a sentence enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(1): "The Court likewise preserved the exception for prior convictions in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 301 (2004); United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 244 (2005); Cunningham v. California, 127 S.Ct. 856, 864, 868 (2007); and, most recently, James v. United States, 127 S.Ct. 1586, 1600 n. 8 (2007).").

Colaianni v. INS, 490 F.3d 185 (2d Cir. Jun. 15, 2007) (per curiam) (petition for review denied on basis that noncitizen's claim to be United States citizen, advanced as a defense in removal proceedings, was invalid, since biological parentage is necessary for a person to claim citizenship under former INA 301(a)(3) because of the plain language of the statute, which refers to persons "born ... of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States" and pertains only to the acquisition of citizenship "at birth."), citing Marquez-Marquez v.

Danso v. Gonzales, 489 F.3d 709 (5th Cir. June 15, 2007) (rejecting equal protection argument that noncitizens British expungement should be given effect for immigration purposes where noncitizen could hypothetically have availed himself of the expungement procedures set forth in the Federal First Offenders Act (FFOA)).

Pena-Muriel v. Gonzales, 489 F.3d 438 (1st Cir. Jun. 13, 2007) (BIA's refusal to reopen removal proceedings after a criminal conviction was vacated is affirmed where IIRAIRA's repeal of 8 U.S.C. 1105a(c) (1994) (repealed 1996) ("An order of deportation ... shall not be reviewed by any court if the alien ... has departed from the United States after the issuance of the order.") did not invalidate the regulation, 8 C.F.R.

Pena-Muriel v. Gonzales, 489 F.3d 438 (1st Cir. Jun. 13, 2007) (the overturning of a conviction upon which deportability was premised is an appropriate basis for reopening administrative proceedings); De Faria v. INS, 13 F.3d 422, 423 (1st Cir. 1993); see also Alim v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 1239, 1249-50 (11th Cir. 2006); Cruz-Garza v. Ashcroft, 396 F.3d 1125, 1128-29 (10th Cir. 2005).

United States v. Savage, 488 F.3d 1232, (9th Cir. Jun.

United States v. Beltran-Munguia, 489 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. Jun. 7, 2007) (Oregon conviction of sexual abuse in the second degree, in violation of Oregon Revised Statute 163.425, did not qualify as a "crime of violence," for purposes of 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii), of his sentence for illegal reentry after deportation both because the state statute does not make force - be it used, attempted, or threatened - an element of the crime, and because the crime does not constitute a "forcible sex offense" within the meaning of the applicable guideline).