Vivieros v. Holder, ___ F.3d ___ (1st Cir. Jun. 25, 2012) (Massachusetts conviction of shoplifting, under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 266, 30A, constituted a conviction for immigration purposes, under INA 101(a)(48)(A), 8 U.S.C. (a)(48)(A), where the defendant pleaded guilty and received a fine of $250, which was later vacated, so the ultimate disposition was a guilty finding with no fines or costs, because a formal judgment of guilt had been entered and the fine was not vacated on a ground of legal invalidity).

Note: This decision is mistaken.

Vivieros v. Holder, ___ F.3d ___, ___ (1st Cir. Jun. 25, 2012) (Massachusetts conviction of shoplifting, under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 266, 30A, constituted a conviction for immigration purposes, under INA 101(a)(48)(A), 8 U.S.C.

Vivieros v. Holder, ___ F.3d ___ (1st Cir. Jun. 25, 2012) (court of appeals review of BIA decision is restricted to the ground of the agency's holding); following El Moraghy v. Ashcroft, 331 F.3d 195, 203 (1st Cir. 2003).

Aponte v. Holder, 683 F.3d 6 (1st Cir. Jun. 21, 2012) (granting petition for review on ground BIA failed adequately to address certain issues raised by petitioner).

Vera v. Atty General, 672 F.3d 187 (3d Cir. Mar. 1, 2012) (court may presume visa waiver entrant executed the statutorily required waiver of her right to challenge removal; even if waiver was not signed or invalid, prejudice must also be shown), vacated by Vera v. Att'y Gen, __ F.3d __, 2012 WL 2135508 (3d Cir. Jun. 13, 2012) (DHS discovered petitioner was not a visa waiver program entrant).

Esperanza Alvarado de Rodriguez v. Holder, 585 F.3d 227 (5th Cir. Oct. 9, 2009) (whether the BIA applied an improper standard of review is a question of law, which the court of appeal has jurisdiction to consider: here, the BIA improperly reviewed the IJ's factual findings de novo, when the BIA, while indicating that it did not find any clear error in the immigration judge's factual findings or in its credibility determinations, nonetheless all but ignored significant testimony and documentary evidence that the alien presented as proof of her good faith in entering into marriage).

Ruiz-Lopez v. Holder, 682 F.3d 513, *516 (6th Cir. Jun. 19, 2012) (court of appeals gives Chevron deference to BIA interpretation of vague statutory phrase moral turpitude unless it is arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute. Kellermann, 592 F.3d at 702 (quoting Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 843"44, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984)). No deference is given, however, to the BIA's interpretation of a state criminal statute; that issue is reviewed de novo. Serrato"Soto, 570 F.3d at 688.).

Anaya-Aguilar v. Holder, 683 F.3d 369 (7th Cir. Jun. 14, 2012) (no jurisdiction to review BIA decision to deny sua sponte motion to reopen).

Bobadilla v. Holder, 679 F.3d 1052 (8th Cir. May 29, 2012) (finding full analysis of Matter of Silva-Trevino, 24 I. & N. Dec. 687 (A.G. 2008), including the factual analysis, to be a reasonable interpretation, and therefore due Chevron deference).

Oyeniran v. Holder, 672 F.3d 800 (9th Cir. Mar. 6, 2012, amended May 3, 2012) (collateral estoppel applies in immigration proceedings; BIAs prior determination that alien had demonstrated he would be tortured upon his return to Nigeria was binding on the government in subsequent proceedings; BIA abused its discretion by denying motion to reopen on ground that alien knew of purported new evidence at time of the original ruling, where it was uncontroverted that alien lacked access to that evidence at that time, and the evidence was significant, dramatic, and compelling).