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.

Under Descamps and Moncrieffe, arguably no California conviction of burglary, in violation of Penal Code 459, is a crime of moral turpitude, because the specific intended offense is not an "element" of burglary but merely a "means" of committing the offense, since the jury need not agree unanimously as to which specific offense was intended at the time of the entry.

Under Descamps and Moncrieffe, arguably no California conviction of burglary, in violation of Penal Code 459, is a crime of moral turpitude, because the specific intended offense is not an "element" of burglary but merely a "means" of committing the offense, since the jury need not agree unanimously as to which specific offense was intended at the time of the entry.

Matter of Chavez-Alvarez, 26 I. & N. Dec. 274 (BIA Mar. 14, 2014) (adjustment of status constitutes an admission for purposes of determining removability under INA 237(a)(2)(A)(iii), 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), as an alien convicted of an aggravated felony at any time after admission).

Convictions under California Health & Safety Code 11377 and 11378 do not categorically qualify as generic controlled substance offenses under settled case law.
Moreover, because the statute of conviction is not divisible in the sense used by the Supreme Court in Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013), the Court cannot proceed to examine the record of conviction under the modified categorical analysis of the statute.

Matter of Abdelghany, 26 I. & N. Dec. 254 (BIA 2014) (a lawful permanent resident otherwise eligible for relief under former INA 212(c) is eligible without regard to whether the conviction resulted from a plea agreement or a trial, and without regard to whether he or she was removable or deportable under the law in effect when the conviction was entered).

United States v. Fish, ___ F.3d ___, 2014 WL 715785 (1st Cir. Feb. 26, 2014) (Massachusetts convictions for breaking and entering (daytime or nighttime) with intent to commit a felony, M.G.L. ch. 266, 16, 18, and assault and battery with dangerous weapon, under M.G.L. ch. 265, 15A, did not categorically constitute crimes of violence, under 18 U.S.C.

Matter of Islam, 25 I&N Dec. 637, 643 (BIA 2011) (very restrictive interpretation of single scheme exception for multiple moral turpitude conviction ground of deportability, calling into question the authority of older cases with a more generous interpretation: the BIA cited to Chevron and Brand X and concluded: "We respectfully conclude that our analysis there is controlling and should now be uniformly applied in all circuits throughout the country.").

Note: There is a good argument, however, to the contrary. E.g., Gonzalez-Sandoval v. U.S. INS, 910 F.2d 614 (9th Cir.

All circuits to consider the question have held that plain language of the statutory aggravated felony bar to the waiver in INA 212(h) applies only to individuals who entered the United States as lawful permanent residents (LPR), not to those who subsequently adjusted to LPR status. Papazoglou v. Holder, 725 F.3d 790 (7th Cir. 2013); Hanif v. Atty. General of the United States, 694 F.3d 479, 487 (3d Cir. 2012); Bracamontes v. Holder, 675 F.3d 380, 386"87 (4th Cir. 2012); Lanier v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 631 F.3d 1363, 1366"67 (11th Cir. 2011); Martinez v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 532, 546 (5th Cir.