United States v. Reveles, 660 F.3d 1138, No. 10-30313 (9th Cir. Oct. 24, 2011) (the non-judicial punishment (NJP) administered by the Navy for drunk driving was not criminal in nature and therefore the Government did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by prosecuting and convicting the defendant for the crime a second time"this time in the U.S.

Arsdi v. Holder, 659 F.3d 925 (9th Cir. Oct. 24, 2011) (no jurisdiction to review a specific claim where the respondent only made a general allegation that immigration judge erred in denying relief without alleging specific issues); citing INA 242(d)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1252(d)(1) (court of appeal has jurisdiction to review final removal order only if the petitioner has exhausted all administrative remedies available to the alien as of right.).

In Arsdi v. Holder, 659 F.3d 925 (9th Cir. Oct. 24, 2011), the Ninth Circuit held it lacked jurisdiction to consider petition for review of claim that Immigration Judge used wrong standard to decide whether conviction was for particularly serious crime to bar relief, since the petitioner failed to exhaust the claim by presenting it to the BIA in a way that afforded the BIA notice and a chance to correct its own errors. He made only a general allegation that the IJ erred in denying him relief, and failed to specify which issues form the basis of the appeal. INA 242(d)(1), 8 U.S.C.

Arsdi v. Holder, 659 F.3d 925, 930 (9th Cir. Oct. 24, 2011) (As the government points out, an alien may also move for reconsideration or reopening of the IJs decision. See 8 U.S.C. 1229a(c)(6)-(7). Because these motions are not remedies available to the alien, as of right, an alien need not use them in order to exhaust his claim. 8 U.S.C. 1252(d)(1). However, these multifarious methods of review highlight the import Congress placed on allowing the agency to correct its own mistakes prior to interference by the federal courts.).

Arsdi v. Holder, 659 F.3d 925, 930 (9th Cir. Oct. 24, 2011) (As the government points out, an alien may also move for reconsideration or reopening of the IJs decision. See 8 U.S.C. 1229a(c)(6)-(7). Because these motions are not remedies available to the alien, as of right, an alien need not use them in order to exhaust his claim. 8 U.S.C. 1252(d)(1). However, these multifarious methods of review highlight the import Congress placed on allowing the agency to correct its own mistakes prior to interference by the federal courts.).

United States v. Reina-Rodriguez, 655 F.3d 1182 (9th Cir. Sept. 13, 2011) (in using the modified categorical analysis to determine whether a state conviction falls within a generic federal definition of a conviction, the court cannot consider an uncontroverted presentence report); United States v. Felix, 561 F.3d 1036, 1045 (9th Cir. 2009) (it is inappropriate to use a presentence report to determine the type or character of the conviction.) (emphasis in original); United States v. Corona"Sanchez, 291 F.3d 1201, 1212 (9th Cir.

United States v. Reina-Rodriguez, 655 F.3d 1182 (9th Cir. Sept. 13, 2011) (in using the modified categorical analysis to determine whether a state conviction falls within a generic federal definition of a conviction, the court cannot consider a post-conviction, independent examination of the facts forming the basis of a prior conviction; Taylor requires the avoidance of subsequent evidentiary enquiries into the factual basis for the earlier conviction.).

United States v. Reina-Rodriguez, 655 F.3d 1182 (9th Cir. Sept. 13, 2011) (the Grisel rule applies retroactively to this case, and the Supreme Courts decision in Teague does not preclude this, since (1) Teague applies only to new constitutional rules of criminal procedure.; (2) Teague by its terms applies only to procedural rules); see United States v. Grisel, 488 F.3d 844, 851 n.5 (9th Cir.

Matter of Cruz de Ortiz, 25 I&N Dec. 601 (BIA Sept. 20, 2011) (the 5-year statute of limitations to rescission of LPR status, in INA 246(a), 8 U.S.C. 1256(a), relates only to proceedings to rescind lawful permanent resident status acquired through adjustment of status, and is therefore inapplicable to bar the removal of an alien who was admitted to the United States with an immigrant visa), distinguishing Garcia v. Attorney General of the United States, 553 F.3d 724 (3d Cir. 2009).

Cheruku v. Attorney General of U.S., ___ F.3d ___, 2011 WL 4392429 (3d Cir. Sept. 22, 2011) (noncitizen barred from adjustment of status under INA 245(i) where the noncitizen is subject to inadmissibilty under INA 212(a)(9)(C)).