Kawashima v. Holder, 132 S.Ct. 1166 (Feb. 21, 2012) (both the majority and the dissent believe that the rule of lenity would have been applicable to require interpretation of the deportation statute in favor of the noncitizen, if the Court had found the statute to be ambiguous).

United States v. Arango, 670 F.3d 988, 2012 WL 89184 (9th Cir. Jan.12, 2012 (reversing denaturalization order where issue of fact remained as to whether noncitizen, who procured LPR status through fraudulent marriage, had entered into cooperation agreement with the INS allowing him to retain his LPR status).

Contreras-Bocanegra v. Holder, ___ F.3d ___, 2012 WL 255879 (10th Cir. Jan. 30, 2012) (en banc) (8 C.F.R. 1003.2(d), prohibiting respondent from moving to reopen removal proceedings after departure from the United States, impermissibly interferes with Congress' clear intent to afford each noncitizen a statutory right to pursue a motion to reopen under 8 U.S.C. 1229a(c)(7)); overturning Roussillon"Puga v. Holder, 580 F.3d 1147, 1156 (10th Cir.2009) (upholding post-departure bar as an authorized exercise of the Attorney General's rulemaking authority).

Mary Holper, Deportation for a Sin: Why Moral Turpitude is Void for Vagueness (Roger Williams University Legal Studies Paper No. 115, SSRN, October 1, 2011).

Gerald Neuman, The Lost Century of American Immigration Law (1776-1876), 93 Colum. L. Rev. 1833, 1833-84 (1993); Pratheepan Gulasekaram and Rose Cuison Villazor, Sanctuary Policies & Immigration Federalism, 55 Wayne Law Review 1683 (2009).

Immigration counsel can argue that INA 240A(b)(1)(C), barring 10-year non-LPR cancellation for anyone convicted of an offense under section 212(a)(2), 237(a)(2), or 237(a)(3), does not reach a person who was found by a court to have engaged in conduct that violated a qualifying portion of a protection order under INA 237(a)(2)(E)(ii), if the person was not convicted of an offense under the specified statutes. This removal ground does not require or mention a criminal conviction.

Chehazeh v. Attorney General, 666 F.3d 118 (3d Cir. Jan. 11, 2012) (district courts have jurisdiction under the APA, 28 U.S.C. 1331, to review a BIA grant [but not denial] and a sua sponte decision to reopen a removal proceeding; "On general principles, then, the District Court had jurisdiction over Chehazeh's claims under 1331 and could have reviewed the BIA's decision to reopen Chehazeh's removal proceedings pursuant to the APA if (1) the BIA's action was not 'committed to agency discretion by law,' 5 U.S.C. 701(a)(2); (2) no statute precluded review, 5 U.S.C.

Prudencio v. Holder, 669 F.3d 472 (4th Cir. Jan. 30, 2012) (the Attorney Generals method to determine whether a conviction is a crime of moral turpitude, set forth in Matter of Silva-Trevino, 24 I&N Dec. 687 (A.G. 2008), is not an authorized exercise of his discretion under Chevron).

Turkson v. Holder, 667 F.3d 523 (4th Cir. Jan. 26, 2012) (granting petition for review, and vacating removal order, where BIA erroneously reviewed the IJ's factual findings under the de novo standard of review instead of under the clearly erroneous standard required by its governing regulations, in considering a claim for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture); referring to 8 C.F.R. 1003.1(d)(i) (The Board will not engage in de novo review of findings of fact determined by an immigration judge.

United States v. Ramos-Cruz, 667 F.3d 487 (4th Cir. Jan. 19, 2012) (undocumented noncitizen who applied for, and was denied, TPS prior to being found in possession of a firearm could be convicted as a "alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States" in possession of a firearm; leaving open the question of whether an undocumented noncitizen with TPS pending could be convicted under the same statute).