Anaya-Ortiz v. Mukasey, 553 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir. Jan. 27, 2009) ("Whether the BIA and IJ relied on improper evidence in making the "particularly serious crime" determination is one such question of law that we have jurisdiction to review. See Morales v. Gonzales, 478 F.3d 972, 980 (9th Cir.2007).").

Liu v. Mukasey, 553 F.3d 37 (1st Cir. Jan. 12, 2009) (BIA denial of motion for reconsideration proper where moving party failed to specify a particular error of law or fact in that earlier decision).

Mendis v. Filip, 554 F.3d 335 (2d Cir. Jan. 30, 2009) (BIA decision did not sufficiently explain why it designated the U.K. as the a country of removal, where petitioner was in the U.K. for only a few hours during a stopover en route to the U.S. and had no legal right to live or travel there).

Mosere v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 397 (4th Cir. Jan. 12, 2009) (court lacks jurisdiction to review BIA refusal to grant sua sponte motion to reopen, since there are no meaningful standards by which to evaluate the decision).

Iqbal v. Bryson, ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (E.D. Va., Jan. 13, 2009) ("Had Petitioner been required to plead guilty or admit to facts surrounding the charges, New York's PDA and Texas' deferred adjudication program would be identical when analyzed under the statute. Instead of utilizing New York's deferred adjudication agreement, which does require the defendant to make a plea, Petitioner was involved in New York's PDA program, which has no such requirements.

Patel v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 800 (5th Cir. Apr. 29, 2008) (BIA erred in looking to record of conviction to determine the underlying felony in a conviction for misprision of a felony, since the statute at issue, 8 U.S.C. 4, does not include any discrete subsections or disjunctive terms).

Skurtu v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 651(8th Cir. Dec. 24, 2008) (noncitizen barred from filing "complaint" alleging IJ committed errors and violated due process rights; appeal to the circuit court is the sole means of judicial review of removal proceedings; time limits for filing a petition for review are jurisdictional and mandatory; bars on judicial review do not violate suspension clause).

On December 18, 2008, the EOIR published a new regulation on voluntary departure, specifically addressing a number of issues that have been subject to litigation, including whether voluntary departure tolls upon filing a motion to reopen or appeal. 73 Fed. Reg. 76927 (Dec. 18, 2008). The regulation may be viewed here: www.aila.org/content/fileviewer.aspx?docid=27460&linkid=187734



Among other changes, the new rule states that:

Singh v. US Attorney Gen., __ F.3d __ (11th Cir. Dec.

Valencia v. Mukasey, 548 F.3d 1261 (9th Cir. Dec. 4, 2008) (immigration judge is not required to advise noncitizen of availability of relief from removal where there is no apparent eligibility for the relief; there is no blanket requirement that an IJ must advise respondent of possibility of receiving asylum, withholding or CAT).