Silva-Trevino v. Holder, 742 F.3d 197, 200 (5th Cir. Jan. 30, 2014) (immigration judge cannot consider extrinsic evidence to determine whether an alien was convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude: We have long held that, in making this determination, judges may consider only the inherent nature of the crime, as defined in the statute, or, in the case of divisible statutes, the alien's record of conviction. Amouzadeh v. Winfrey, 467 F.3d 451, 455 (5th Cir.2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); U.S. ex rel. McKenzie v. Savoretti, 200 F.2d 546, 548 (1952).

United States v. Tucker, 740 F.3d 1177 (8th Cir. Jan. 29, 2014) (under the Supreme Courts decision in Descamps, the court may not apply the modified categorical approach to a statute that is textually indivisible, such as the Missouri statute penalizing a walk-away escape from a half-way house, to hold the offense to be a crime of violence under the residual otherwise clause of the ACCA, 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(2)(B)(ii), because there was a guard on duty when the escape occurred); partially overruling United States v. Parks, 620 F.3d 911 (8th Cir.

Negrete-Ramirez v. Holder, 741 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. Jan. 21, 2014) (the aggravated felony bar to a waiver of inadmissibility under INA 212(h) for a noncitizen previously admitted to the US as a LPR does not apply to someone who adjusted status without leaving the United States: only non-citizens who entered the United States as lawful permanent residents are barred from eligibility to apply for waiver).

Rodriguez v. Robbins, 715 F.3d 1127, 1133 (9th Cir. 2013) (mandatory immigration detention pursuant to INA 236(c) detention is limited to six months; anything longer without an individualized hearing is presumptively unreasonable); Diop v. ICE/Homeland Security, 656 F.3d 221, 234 (3d Cir. 2011) (individualized hearing required to determine what is reasonable in a given case); Ly v. Hansen, 351 F.3d 263, 272 (6th Cir. 2003); Bourguignon v. MacDonald, 667 F. Supp. 2d 175 (D. Mass. 2009).

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.

In California burglary cases, the jury need not unanimously agree on the identity of the offense that the defendant intended to commit crime at entry. CALCRIM 1700 provides: The People allege that the defendant intended to commit (theft/ [or] ). You may not find the defendant guilty of burglary unless you all agree that (he/she) intended to commit one of those crimes at the time of the entry.

If a respondent has obtained post-conviction relief in the court of conviction, respondent can ask the immigration judge or Board of Immigration Appeals sua sponte to reopen removal proceedings based upon a gross miscarriage of justice. There is a line of cases in the Ninth Circuit (Cardoso-Tlaseca v. Gonzalez, 460 F.3d 1103 (9th Cir. 2006); Estrada-Rosales v. INS, 645 F.2d 819 (9th Cir. 1981); Wiedersperg v. INS, 896 F.2d 1179 (9th Cir. 1990)) that supports the argument that if the prior conviction was vacated on constitutional grounds, the removal was illegal and ought not to stand.

Soto v. Holder, 736 F.3d 1009 (1st Cir. Dec. 3, 2013) (clock for purposes of stop-time rule for cancellation of removal ended on date NTA was served on the noncitizen, even though it was not served on the Immigration Court until two years later).

Pierre v. Holder, 738 F.3d 39 (2d Cir. Dec. 10, 2013) (petitioner was not entitled to automatic derivative citizenship under 8 U.S.C. 1432(a) based on his father's naturalization because his parents were never married and thus there could be no "legal separation" as required under the statute).

United States v. Montes-Flores, 736 F.3d 357 (4th Cir. Nov.