On May 22, 2007, the EOIR issued new guidelines on the appearance of unaccompanied minors in the immigration courts:
http://www.usdoj.gov/eoir/efoia/ocij/oppm07/07-01.pdf

Garcia-Maldonado v. Gonzales, 491 F.3d 284 (5th Cir. Jun. 29, 2007) (Texas conviction of failure to stop and render aid under Texas Transportation Code 550.021 is a CMT for immigration purposes; "subsection of section 550.21 that criminalizes failure to render aid proscribes behavior that runs contrary to accepted societal duties.")



NOTE: The statute of conviction does not require any intent. The court seems to imply a knowledge element, but does not cite any statutory language or cases that require knowledge.

Mizrahi v. Gonzales, 492 F.3d 156 (2d Cir. Jun. 27, 2007) (New York conviction for fourth-degree solicitation to sell drugs in violation of the state's generic solicitation statute, N.Y. Penal Law 100.05(1), constituted a conviction relating to a controlled substance, and rendered him inadmissible to the United States pursuant to INA 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II)).

Hernandez-Gil v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 803 (9th Cir. Feb. 16, 2007) ("When an immigrant has engaged counsel and the IJ is aware of the representation, if counsel fails to appear, the IJ must take reasonable steps to ensure that the immigrants statutory right to counsel is honored. Here, denying the request for a continuance and conducting the merits hearing without taking reasonable steps to permit counsel to participate, denied Hernandez-Gil his statutory right to counsel.")

Randhawa v. Gonzales, 474 F.3d 918 (6th Cir. Jan. 30, 2007) (petition for review of BIA decision does not toll the time limit for filing a motion for reconsideration with the BIA).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/6th/053694p.pdf

United States v. Castillo-Basa, __ F.3d __, 2007 WL 570326 (9th Cir. Feb. 26, 2007) (doctrine of collateral estoppel, applied in the criminal double jeopardy context, prevents government from charging illegal entrant with perjury where during the initial illegal re-entry prosecution, the government could not find the taped record of the deportation hearing, but later finds the tape after acquittal; "The Double Jeopardy Clause does not only bar a second prosecution on the same charge of which a defendant has been previously acquitted (or convicted).

United States v. Almazan-Becerra, ___ F.3d ___, ___, 2007 WL 926486 (9th Cir. March 29, 2007) (applying categorical analysis to illegal re-entry sentencing context to determine whether conviction triggers sentence enhancement).

Nabulwala v. Gonzales, ___ F.3d ___, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 6449 (8th Cir. March 21, 2007) ("[T]he BIA may not find facts, as it attempted to do in this case. ... The BIA's attempt to fill the gaps by finding facts is impermissible.").
http://bibdaily.com/pdfs/nabulwala.pdf

Matter of Garcia-Flores, 17 I. & N. Dec. 325, 329 (BIA 1980) (adopting administrative exclusionary rule allowing respondent to exclude evidence where government violates a regulation intended to benefit the respondent who can show prejudice as the result of the violation).



Note: This remedy is rooted in the Fifth Amendment, but is a third remedy in addition to Fifth amendment and possibly egregious Fourth amendment violations. Thanks to Dan Kesselbrenner.

In the Ninth Circuit, the controlling cases on egregious Fourth amendment violations are Orhorhage v. INS, 38 F.3d 488, 503 (9th Cir.1994) and Gonzalez-Rivera v. INS, 22 F.3d 1441 (9th Cir. 1994). The Immigration Judge has authority to consider the constitutional claim that evidence is inadmissible as a result of egregious Fourth Amendment violations, i.e., when a reasonable officer knew or should have known that the Fourth amendment rights would be violated by this conduct and proceeded anyway.