The BIA explained:

If an otherwise qualifying LPR is removable or deportable by virtue of a plea or conviction between Apr. 24, 1996 and Apr. 1, 1997, 212(c) relief is available unless: (1) proceedings were commenced on or after Apr.

United States v. Barrios-Siguenza, 747 F.3d 1222, 1223 (9th Cir. Apr. 9, 2014) (We were assured at oral argument that Barrios will return for trial should the government choose to retry him and parole him into the country for that purpose. Cf. United States v. Leal"Del Carmen, 697 F.3d 964, 975 (9th Cir. 2012) (discussing the Attorney General's authority to parole aliens into the country to testify in criminal prosecutions (citing 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)(A))).

Urbina v. Holder, __ F.3d __ (4th Cir. Mar. 17, 2014) (service of notice to appears stopped time for cancellation of removal purposes even though the notice contained missing charges, and incorrect information).

United States v. Carrasco-Tercero, ___ F.3d ___, 2014 WL 983180 (5th Cir. Mar. 13, 2014) (showing the statute explicitly covers conduct that falls outside a generic removal ground is not necessarily sufficient to establish that there is a reasonable probability of prosecution, where the overbroad conduct is anachronistic and not prosecuted today).

Aljabri v. Holder, 745 F.3d 816 (7th Cir. Mar. 11, 2014) (district court had jurisdiction over noncitizens pro se suit for order naturalization or declaration of citizenship, notwithstanding the discretionary nature of the Attorney General's ruling; the USCIS had no jurisdiction to act on alien's application in manner that might moot his federal lawsuit).

L.D.G. v. Holder, __ F.3d __ (7th Cir. Mar. 12, 2014) (immigration judge has jurisdiction to consider noncitizens waiver request under INA 212(d)(3)(A), that would allow noncitizen to obtain U-Visa, even after the waiver has been denied by USCIS).

Roberts v. Holder, 745 F.3d 928, 930 (8th Cir. Mar. 20, 2014) (that noncitizen adjusted status to that of an LPR after admission as a non-immigrant visitor did not preclude application of bar to waiver of inadmissibility for aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence but later convicted of aggravated felony), following Matter of Rodriguez, 25 I. & N. Dec. 784, 789 (BIA 2012); disagreeing with Bracamontes v. Holder, 675 F.3d 380, 385-386 (4th Cir.

Ortega v. Holder, ___ F.3d ___, 2014 WL 1273767 (9th Cir. Mar. 31, 2014) (application of the reinstatement statute was not impermissibly retroactive, because petitioner had taken no action to vest any right he may have initially had to renew his application for adjustment of status).

Ceron v. Holder, ___ F.3d ___, ___, 2014 WL 1274096 (9th Cir. Mar. 31, 2014) (en banc) (California wobbler offense is a conviction for a crime for which a sentence of one year or longer may be imposed, since even if when treated as a misdemeanor, the maximum penalty is incarceration for one year), overruling Garcia-Lopez v. Ashcroft, 334 F.3d 840, 843 (9th Cir. 2003) and Ferreira v. Ashcroft, 382 F.3d 1045, 1051 (9th Cir. 2004), to the extent that they misstated California law.

Ceron v. Holder, ___ F.3d ___, ___ (9th Cir. Mar. 31, 2014) (en banc) (California conviction of assault with a deadly weapon, in violation of Penal Code 245(a)(1), might no longer constitute a crime of moral turpitude, since: Barber is no longer good law for the proposition that 245(a)(1) categorically describes a CIMT, and that G-R- is unpersuasive and not worthy of deference on the point[, and] Carr v. INS, 86 F.3d 949 (9th Cir. 1996), is no longer good law for its holding that CPC 245(a)(2) is not a categorical CIMT; issue remanded to the BIA); overruling Gonzales v.