Champion v. Holder, 626 F.3d 952 (7th Cir. Nov. 22, 2010) (court has jurisdiction to review whether the Immigration Judge and BIA took sufficient notice of facts relevant in determining hardship for purposes of non-LPR cancellation of removal).

Saavedra-Figueroa v. Holder, 625 F.3d 621 (9th Cir. Nov. 5, 2010) (If the BIA issues or relies on a precedential determination to conclude that a particular crime is a CIMT, we accord it Chevron deference; otherwise, we defer to the BIA's determination only to the extent that it has power to persuade (Skidmore deference).), discussing Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 910-11, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984); Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134, 65 S.Ct. 161, 89 L.Ed. 124 (1944)).

Saavedra-Figueroa v. Holder, 625 F.3d 621 (9th Cir. Nov. 5, 2010) (California misdemeanor conviction of false imprisonment, in violation of Penal Code 236, was not a categorical crime of moral turpitude, because crime did not require noncitizen to have the intent to harm necessary for the crime to be base, vile or depraved).

Some situations where Aguila-Montes may change prior law include:

(1) Estrada-Espinoza consensual sex rules. California Penal Code 261.5(c) shouldn't change because there is only a 3-year age difference, but the result may change for other cases where the record of conviction shows a 4-year age difference between the victim who is under 16 and the perpetrator and there is knowing conduct.

(2) Any sexual abuse offense which is age-neutral.

http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/3815052/422498396/name/Federal_Misdemeanor_... (Aug. 18. 2011) (comprehensive list of federal misdemeanors carrying maximum possible sentence of one year in custody).

Katherine Brady, Immigrant Legal Resource Center Practice Advisory, Ninth Circuit in Planes v. Holder (9th Circuit July 2011) Abandons Finality Requirement for Conviction, so Availability or Pendency of Direct Appeal Does Not Prevent DHS from Relying on Conviction to Trigger Immigration Consequences, www.ilrc.org/crime

Lewis v. Holder, 625 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. Nov. 8, 2010) (BIA's reissuance of its decision triggers a new thirty-day period within which to file petition for review).

Delgado-Sobalvarro v. Attorney General of U.S., 625 F.3d 782 (3d Cir. Nov. 2, 2010) (petitioners were not eligible to adjust status under INA 245 on the basis of their INA 236 conditional parole, since conditional parole does not constitute parole into the United States for the purposes of adjustment of status under INA 245).

United States v. Benitez-De Los Santos, 650 F.3d 1157 (8th Cir. Aug. 18, 2011) (clerks minutes and abstract of judgment form part of the record of conviction, and are sufficient to establish that defendant pleaded guilty to specific count charged against him, for purposes of showing that controlled substance involved in the conviction was the one identified in the charge); following United States v. Snellenberger, 548 F.3d 699, 702 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).

United States v. Crowder, 656 F.3d 870 (9th Cir. Aug. 30, 2011) (affirming federal conviction for failing to register as a sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), 18 U.S.C. 2250(a), where the government is not required to prove that a defendant knew that SORNA imposed a registration requirement in order to sustain a conviction under the statute).

Note: This strengthens the argument that a federal conviction under 18 U.S.C 2250(a), is not a crime involving moral turpitude.