In Judulang, the Court rejected a rule that categorically excluded a group of deportable
LPRs on grounds that bore no relationship to the aliens fitness to remain in the country. Judulang v. Holder, 565 U.S. """", """", 132 S.Ct. 476, 485, 181 L.Ed.2d 449 (2011). Op. at 12. Categorical exclusion of trial conviction cases also bears no relationship to fitness to remain. Indeed, the agency has never claimed that it bore such a relationship. Instead, trial conviction cases have been excluded from relief on the ground that St. Cyr does not require that they be included. See, e.g., Canto v.

Matter of Rivas, 26 I&N Dec. 130 (BIA 2013) (waiver of inadmissibility under INA 212(h) is not available on a stand-alone basis; waiver must be pursuant to an application for adjustment of status; waiver may not be granted nunc pro tunc to avoid requirement that noncitizen must establish eligibility for adjustment).

Flores v. USCIS, __ F.3d __ (6th Cir. Jun. 4, 2013) (plain language of INA 244(f)(4) allows noncitizen who entered without inspection, then obtained TPS, to become an LPR despite illegal entry, and provides an exception to the inspected and admitted or paroled language of INA 245(a)).

Castrijon-Garcia v. Holder, 704 F.3d 1205 (9th Cir. Jan. 9, 2013) (California conviction of simple kidnapping, under Penal Code 207(a), is categorically not a crime involving moral turpitude making a noncitizen statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal, because it does not require an intent to injure, actual injury, or a special class of victims).

Matter of Cortes Medina, 26 I. & N. Dec. 79 (BIA 2013) (California conviction of indecent exposure, in violation of Penal Code 314(1), which includes the element of lewd intent, is categorically a crime involving moral turpitude).

Zhu v. U.S. Attys Gen, 703 F.3d 1303 (11th Cir. Jan 4, 2013) (BIA improperly engaged in de novo review of IJs factual findings; 8 C.F.R. 1003.1(d)(3) allows BIA to review IJs factual finding for clear error only).

Wanjiru v. Holder, 705 F.3d 258 (7th Cir. Jan. 11, 2013) (court has jurisdiction to review denial of a request for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture; INA 242(a)(2)(C) does not bar review).

A practice advisory on provisional waivers of unlawful presence is available here: http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=42954

Matter of Balderas, 20 I&N Dec. 389 (BIA 1991), held that immigration authorities can combine a conviction waived in a first set of removal proceedings with a conviction obtained after a grant of relief to charge the person with removability in a second set of proceedings. Several unpublished cases distinguished Balderas when the person in a single set of proceedings seeks to waive the pre-96 offenses and terminate proceedings because there is only one CIMT conviction occurring after 1996.

Alphonsus v. Holder, 705 F.3d 1031, 2013 WL 208930 (9th Cir. Jan. 18, 2013) (particularly serious crime exception to withholding of removal was not facially unconstitutionally vague).