Velasco-Tijero v. Lynch, 796 F.3d 617 (6th Cir. Aug. 6, 2015) (non-LPR cancellation of removal criminal bars, under 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)(1)(C), INA 240A(b)(1)(C), apply retroactively to noncitizens who were convicted prior to IIRAIRA, but placed into removal proceedings after IIRAIRA).

NOTE: This case found the noncitizen barred because his crime would have made him deportable under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(i), for a single CMT conviction punishable by at least one year in jail. The court did not address the issues decided in Matter of Cortez, 25 I&N Dec.

Salazar-Gonzales v. Lynch, 798 F.3d 917 (9th Cir. Aug. 20, 2015) (noncitizen entitled to equitable tolling on untimely motion to reopen due to prior counsels advice to pursue a form of immigration relief for which the noncitizen was statutorily ineligible; counsels incorrect advice that client could pursue consular processing caused noncitizen to forego right to appeal).

Matter of M-A-F-, 26 I&N Dec. 651 (BIA 2015) (where noncitizens first asylum application was filed before May 11, 2005, and a second application was submitted after that date, the filing date later application controls if it is properly viewed as a new application).

Ramirez Mejia v. Lynch, __ F.3d __ (5th Cir. Jul. 21, 2015) (noncitizens whose removal orders are reinstated following illegal re-entry into the United States may not apply for asylum, since asylum is a form of relief for purposes of the bar to relief under INA 1231(a)(5)), agreeing with Herrera"Molina v. Holder, 597 F.3d 128, 139 (2d Cir. 2010).

Paek v. Attorney General of the US, ___ F.3d ___, 2015 WL 4393910 (3d Cir. Jul. 20, 2015) (INA 212(h) waiving unavailable to noncitizen who committed aggravated felony after admission as a Conditional LPR, since an alien admitted as a lawful permanent resident on a conditional basis qualifies as "an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence" for purposes of the aggravated felony bar to INA 212(h) relief).

Acosta-Olivarria v. Lynch, 799 F.3d 1271 (9th Cir. Aug. 26, 2015) (noncitizen applying for adjustment of immigration status reasonably relied on Perez"Gonzalez v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 783 (9th Cir.2004), before the BIA Matter of Briones, 24 I. & N. Dec. 355 (BIA 2007), a decision directly disagreeing with Perez-Gonzales, despite obvious tension between Ninth Circuit and BIA prior to Briones, that case does not apply retroactively).

Acevedo v. Lynch, ___ F.3d ___, 2015 WL 4999292 (9th Cir. Aug. 24, 2015) (the definition of child in citizenship and naturalization provisions of INA does not include stepchildren).

United States v. Parral-Dominguez, ___ F.3d ___, 2015 WL 4479530 (4th Cir. Jul. 23, 2015) (immigration authorities are bound by interpretation of elements of state offense by states highest court); United States v. Aparicio"Soria, 740 F.3d 152, 154 (4th Cir. 2014) (en banc) (To the extent that the statutory definition of the prior offense has been interpreted by the state's highest court, that interpretation constrains our analysis of the elements of state law.).

9 FAM 40.21(b)a(2) includes the Lujan exception to controlled substances inadmissibility, but requires an advisory opinion before a Lujan exception will be granted. This FAM provision is found at http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86942.pdf

Note that the FAM authors misunderstood and misstated the holding of Nunez-Reyes v. Holder, 646 F.3d 684 (Jul. 14, 2011), when they stated that "state judicial expungements that predate this decision can still be effective for immigration purposes in the Ninth Circuit." This is only partly correct.

Matter of Ordaz, 26 I&N Dec. 637 (BIA 2015) (a notice to appear that was served on an alien but never resulted in the commencement of removal proceedings does not have "stop-time" effect for purposes of establishing eligibility for cancellation of removal pursuant to INA 240A(d)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1229b(d)(1)).

NOTE: This decision could potentially be used to argue for something like repapering (issuing a new NTA to allow noncitizen to have 10 years presence) as a form of prosecutorial discretion, except one would need to intercept the NTA before it is served on the court.