Perez-Mejia v. Holder, ___ F.3d ___, ___, 2011 WL 5865888 (9th Cir. Nov. 23, 2011), amending 641 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir. Apr. 21, 2011) (The government is not estopped by its error in granting Perez"Mejia LPR status from correcting its mistake and ordering his removal.).

Perez-Mejia v. Holder, ___ F.3d ___, 2011 WL 5865888 (9th Cir. Nov. 23, 2011), amending 641 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir. Apr. 21, 2011) (even though petitioner did not raise an argument in his brief before the BIA, the issue is considered exhausted where the BIA addressed the issue on the merits); see Vizcarra"Ayala v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 2008) ([O]ur precedent is quite clear that claims addressed on the merits by the BIA are exhausted.); Socop"Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1186 (9th Cir.

Perez-Mejia v. Holder, ___ F.3d ___, ___, 2011 WL 5865888 (9th Cir. Nov. 23, 2011), amending 641 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir. Apr. 21, 2011) (When the modified categorical approach must be employed, an alien's factual admissions may not be used as evidence to establish that he is removable, unless those admissions are included in the narrow, specified set of documents that are part of the record of conviction, such as a plea agreement.); see S"Yong v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1028, 1035"36 (9th Cir.2010); Tokatly v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 613, 623"24 (9th Cir.2004); Huerta"Guevara v.

A reduction of a felony to a misdemeanor, in a jurisdiction in which the maximum sentence for a misdemeanor is no greater than one year, may enable a client to qualify for the Petty Offense Exception to CMT inadmissibility if the other requirements for the POE are met. INA 212(a)(2)(A)(ii)(II), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)(A)(ii)(II). See, e.g., California Penal Code 17(b)(3). If the felony is reduced to a misdemeanor, the maximum punishment for the offense is reduced to one year, which is small enough to qualify for the Petty Offense Exception. LaFarga v. INS, 170 F.3d 1213 (9th Cir.

Sara Fawk, Note, Eligibility for Section 212(c) Relief from Deportation: Is it the Ground or the Offense, the Dancer or the Dance?, 32 Western New England L. Rev.

Mary Holper, Deportation for a Sin: Why Moral Turpitude is Void for Vagueness, Roger Williams University School of Law (Sept. 30, 2011).
Abstract: A major problem facing noncitizen criminal defendants today is the vagueness of the term crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT) in deportation law. The Supreme Court in the 1951 case Jordan v. DeGeorge decided that a statute authorizing deportation for a CIMT was not void for vagueness because courts had long held the noncitizens offense, fraud, to be a CIMT, so he was on notice of his likely deportation.

Matter of Islam, 25 I&N Dec. 637 (BIA 2011) (crimes of moral turpitude did not arise out of a single scheme of criminal misconduct where respondent was convicted in two different counties of forgery and possession of stolen property based on his use of multiple stolen credit or debit cards to obtain items of value from several retail outlets on five separate occasions over the course of a day).
http://www.justice.gov/eoir/vll/intdec/vol25/3733.pdf

Immigration authorities generally cite Matter of Ajami, 22 I&N Dec. 949 (BIA 1999) (Michigan conviction for aggravated stalking, in violation of M.C.L.A. 750.411i is a crime involving moral turpitude), for the proposition that threatening another is a CMT. Ajami may be not be the end of the issue, however, since that case involved a pattern of behavior, rather than a single instance of issuing a threat. Depending upon the statute at issue, the conviction may not involve an intent to carry out the threat or the intent that the threat was believed.

Matos-Santana v. Holder, 660 F.3d 91, 2011 WL 5176795 (1st Cir. Nov. 2, 2011) (Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction to review claim that BIA abused its discretion in not sua sponte entertaining his untimely motion to reopen).

De Vega v. Gonzales, 503 F.3d 45, 47 (1st Cir. 2007) (alien admitted to facts sufficient for a finding of guilt and court issued a continuance without a finding of guilt, contingent on payment of restitution, which constituted punishment, and the disposition therefore constituted a conviction under INA 101(a)(48)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(48)(A)).

NOTE: This case is very poorly reasoned.