Alphonsus v. Holder, 705 F.3d 1031, 2013 WL 208930 (9th Cir. Jan. 18, 2013) (BIA did not adequately explain its reasons for designating noncitizens conviction for resisting arrest as a particularly serious crime rendering him ineligible for withholding from removal; In making a discretionary immigration decision, the agency must indicate how it weighed the factors involved and how it arrived at its conclusion.).

Khattak v. Holder, 704 F.3d 197 (1st Cir. Jan. 17, 2013) (granting petition for review of Board of Immigration Appeals denial of petitioners application for asylum, where neither the IJ or the BIA has presented a reasoned analysis of the evidence as a whole).

Alphonsus v. Holder, 705 F.3d 1031, 1041-41 (9th Cir. Jan. 18, 2013) (holding void-for-vagueness constitutional doctrine applies to allow a facial constitutional vagueness challenge to 8 U.S.C.

Alphonsus v. Holder, 705 F.3d 1031, 2013 WL 208930 (9th Cir. Jan. 18, 2013) (an agency changing course must do so in a format capable of modifying an earlier interpretation. Here, an unpublished, non-precedential opinion in this case could not modify earlier, published precedential opinions even if adequate reasons were given for the departure. See Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 345 F.3d 824, 846"47 (9th Cir.2003).).

Rodriguez v. Holder, 705 F.3d 207, (5th Cir. Jan. 16, 2013) (Rodriguez's Adjudication of Guilt states that [t]he Sex Offender Registration Requirements ... do apply to the Defendant. The age of the victim at the time of the offense was 16 years of age. However, this statement does not indicate that the age of the victim was an element of the offense under which Rodriguez was convicted. Nor is this an explicit factual finding by the trial judge to which the defendant assented. [Footnote omitted.] Rodriguez did not plead guilty to the sexual assault of a child.

Rodriguez v. Holder, 705 F.3d 207, (5th Cir. Jan. 16, 2013) (Section 16 has both criminal and noncriminal applications, and thus, the rule of lenity applies. We therefore are constrained to interpret any ambiguity in the statute in [Rodriguez's] favor.) (footnotes omitted); quoting Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1, 11 n. 8, 125 S.Ct. 377, 160 L.Ed.2d 271 (2004).

Mondragon v. Holder, 706 F.3d 535 (4th Cir. Jan. 31, 2013) (respondents sworn evidence concerning the offense conduct did not constitute part of the record of conviction on the basis of which the immigration authorities determine whether his Virginia conviction for assault and battery, in violation of Virginia Code 18.2"57, constituted an aggravated felony crime of violence for immigration purposes).

NOTE: This case demonstrates the problems with placing the burden on a respondent in removal proceedings seeking relief where the record of conviction is inconclusive.

Barragan-Lopez v. Holder, 705 F.3d 1112 (9th Cir. Jan. 29, 2013) (court of appeal cannot affirm the BIA or IJ on a ground upon which it did not rely.); quoting Ali v. Holder, 637 F.3d 1025, 1029 (9th Cir. 2011).

Carrillo de Palacios v. Holder, 708 F.3d 1066, 2013 WL 310387 (9th Cir. Jan. 28, 2013) (petitioner was not eligible to adjust status to lawful permanent resident, where: 1) she was inadmissible under INA 212(a)(9)(C)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(C)(i), because after she was ordered removed she returned to the United States without being admitted; 2) the agency's statutory interpretation of this statute applies retroactively to noncitizens who applied for adjustment of status prior to the Ninth Circuits decision in Duran-Gonzales v. Holder, 508 F.3d 1227 (9th Cir. 2007)).

Inspection and Entry at a Port of Entry: Where is There an Admission? (Jan. 30, 2013) (this applies beyond the DACA context and discusses entries in three common situations: where a noncitizen is waved through a port of entry with no questions asked; where entry is gained by fraud or misrepresentation; and where there is a false claim to U.S. citizenship).
http://www.legalactioncenter.org/practice-advisories/%E2%80%9Cbrief-casu...