Castro-ORyan v. U.S. Dept of Immigr. & Naturalization, 847 F.2d 1307, 1312 (9th Cir. 1988) (With only a small degree of hyperbole, the immigration laws have been termed second only to the Internal Revenue Code in complexity. (quoting Elizabeth Hull, Without Justice for All 107 (1985))).

It is possible, under some statutes criminalizing threats, for a threat to be punished even though (a) the defendant did not intend to carry out the threat, and (b) the defendant did not intend the threat to be believed. Under these circumstances it is possible the statute might punish a defendant who was merely negligent on these issues.

A mental state of mere negligence is insufficient to constitute a crime of moral turpitude.

8 CFR 245.1(b)(8) (a Visa Waiver Program entrant can adjust status via an immediate relative).

The Private Bill Kit is on Penn States website.
http://law.psu.edu/_file/PBDA_Toolkit.pdf

8 CFR 245.1(b)(8) states that VWP entrants can adjust if the adjustment is through an immediate relative.

Matter of Espinosa-Guillot, 25 I&N Dec. 653 (BIA Dec. 6, 2011) (noncitizen who adjusted to LPR status through Cuban Refugee Adjustment Act has been admitted to the United States and is therefore subject to grounds of removal under INA 237).

Matter of Camarillo, 25 I. & N. Dec. 644 (BIA Dec. 2, 2011) (any period of continuous residence or continuous physical presence of an alien applying for cancellation of removal under section INA 240A is deemed to end upon the service of a notice to appear on the alien, even if the notice to appear does not include the date and time of the initial hearing).
http://www.justice.gov/eoir/vll/intdec/vol25/3734.pdf

Gourche v. Holder, ___ F.3d ___, 2011 WL 5443657 (7th Cir. Nov. 9, 2011) (discretionary waiver of deportability, under INA 237(a)(1)(H), 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(1)(H), for fraudulent conduct is inapplicable to a noncitizen deportable for a visa fraud conviction and therefore deportable under INA 237(a)(3)(B)(iii), 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(3)(B)(iii)).

Lezama-Garcia v. Holder, ___ F.3d ___, 2011 WL 5966204 (9th Cir. Nov. 30, 2011) (brief unplanned departure from the United States did not amount to abandonment of pending application for adjustment of status under 202 of the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act); see 8 C.F.R. 245.13(k)(1), Rosenberg v. Fleuti, 374 U.S. 449, 462 (1963).

Perez-Mejia v. Holder, ___ F.3d ___, ___, 2011 WL 5865888 (9th Cir. Nov. 23, 2011), amending 641 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir. Apr. 21, 2011).

In Perez-Mejia v. Holder, the Ninth Circuit explained the elements of a successful claim of estoppel against the government:

It is well settled ... that the government may not be estopped on the same terms as a private litigant. Watkins, 875 F.2d at 706.