Matter of Diaz-Garcia, 25 I&N Dec. 794 (BIA 2012) (unlawful removal of an alien during the pendency of a direct appeal from a deportation or removal order in violation of 8 C.F.R. 1003.6(a) does not deprive the Board of Immigration Appeals of jurisdiction to review the appeal).

Matter of Rodriguez, 25 I&N Dec. 784 (BIA 2012) (except where it is not permitted to by the Circuit Court of Appeal with jurisdiction over the case, all LPRs, regardless of how they acquired their LPR status, are subject to the LPR bars to 212(h), and may not apply for 212(h) relief if he or she (a) has not accrued seven years lawful residence in the U.S. before issuance of an NTA, or (b) was convicted of an aggravated felony since becoming an LPR); Bracamontes v. Holder, 2012 WL 1037479 (4th Cir.Mar. 29, 2012); Martinez v.Mukasey, 519 F.3d 532 (5th Cir. 2008); and Lanier v. U.S.

Matter of A-Y-M, 25 I. & N. Dec. 791 (BIA 2012) (respondent qualified for derivative asylee status because respondent was unmarried and turned 21 while mother's asylum application was pending, applying Child Status Protection Act).

Cheung v. Holder, 678 F.3d 66 (1st Cir. May 2, 2012)(service of Notice to Appear was effective to stop accrual of continuous presence, even though the fraud charge filed in the NTA was withdrawn and a new charge, overstaying, was later added, since the NTA itself was never withdrawn).

Da Silva Neto v. Holder, 680 F.3d 25 (1st Cir. May 10, 2012) (Massachusetts conviction of malicious destruction of property, under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 266, section 127, is a crime involving moral turpitude; Mass. definition of malicious requires "a state of mind infused with cruelty, hostility, or revenge."), distinguishing Rodriguez"Herrera v. INS, 52 F.3d 238 (9th Cir.1995) (malicious intent in Washington State may be inferred if merely wrongfully done and can include mere pranksters).

Crespo v. Holder, 631 F.3d 130 (4th Cir. Jan. 11, 2011) (Virginia adjudication in 1997 under Virginia Code 18.2"251 for possession of marijuana did not qualify as a conviction under INA 101(a)(48)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(48)(A), because Crespo entered a plea of not guilty and did not admit sufficient facts to warrant a finding of guilt; the adjudication therefore did not disqualify respondent from elgibility for a waiver of inadmissibility under INA 212(h)).

Rivas v. Napolitano, 677 F.3d 849 (9th Cir. Apr. 25, 2012) ("Federal courts are generally without power to review the actions of consular officials. Li Hing of Hong Kong, Inc. v. Levin, 800 F.2d 970, 971 (9th Cir.1986). However, at least two exceptions to this rule exist. First, a court has jurisdiction to review a consular official's actions 'when [the] suit challenges the authority of the consul to take or fail to take an action as opposed to a decision within the consul's discretion.' Patel v. Reno, 134 F.3d 929, 931"32 (9th Cir.1997).

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).

Bedoya-Melendez v. U.S. Atty General, 680 F.3d 1321, (11th Cir. May 17, 2012) (whether noncitizen was battered or subjected to extreme cruelty, as required to be eligible for VAWA special rule cancellation of removal, was not a question of law, such as the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to consider, but unreviewable discretionary determination).

Lin v. U.S. Atty General, 681 F.3d 1236 (11th Cir. May 23, 2012) (the departure bar regulation, 8 C.F.R. 1003.2(d)"stating that the BIA may not entertain a motion to reopen filed by or on behalf of a person who has departed the United States"impermissibly conflicts with INA 240(c)(7)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1229a(c)(7)(A), which permits an alien to file one motion to reopen); accord, Contreras"Bocanegra v. Holder, 2012 WL 255879 (10th Cir. 2012) (en banc); Prestol Espinal v. Att'y Gen., 653 F.3d 213 (3d Cir. 2011); Coyt v. Holder, 593 F.3d 902 (9th Cir. 2010); William v.