Torres-Rendon v. Holder, 656 F.3d 456 (7th Cir. Aug. 23, 2011) (application for suspension of deportation under former INA 244(a)(2), 8 U.S.C. 1254(a)(2), was properly denied for lack of the necessary period of continuous presence: The period of continuous physical presence ended at the time Torres"Rendon committed his drug crime in 1987, or, in the alternative, when an Order to Show Cause was issued to him in 1988.

Cohen v. Longshore, 621 F.3d 1311 (10th Cir. Oct. 19, 2010) (immigration detainee brought civil rights action which was improperly dismissed: petitioner who has no available habeas remedy, through no lack of diligence on his part, is not barred by Heck from pursuing 1983 claim for unlawful confinement).

The offense of misuse of a social security number, in violation of 42 U.S.C. 408(a)(7)(B), may or may not be considered a crime of moral turpitude. For example, use of the card to open a checking account would not appear to be fraudulent, and thus not a CMT. The statute should therefore be considered divisible. Sale of fraudulent immigration documents is clearly CMT. Matter of Flores, 17 I. & N. Dec. 225, 1980 WL 121870 (BIA 1980). Use or possession of a false social security document with specific intent to defraud is a CMT. Matter of Serna, 20 I. & N. Dec. 579, 581 (BIA 1992).

Yule Kim, Statutory Interpretation: General Principles and Recent Trends, Congressional Research Service Report for Congress (Aug. 31, 2008);
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/97-589.pdf

Higgs v. Atty. Gen. of the United States, 655 F.3d 333 (3d Cir. Aug. 25, 2011) (a petitioner has satisfied his administrative remedies if he made some effort, however insufficient, to place the Board on notice of a straightforward issue being raised on appeal.); citing Lin v. Att'y Gen., 543 F.3d 114, 120 (3d Cir.2008); citing Joseph v. Att'y Gen., 465 F.3d 123, 126 (3d Cir. 2006).

Simon v. Holder, 654 F.3d 440 (3d Cir. Aug. 17, 2011) (BIA abused its discretion by denying motion to reconsider in that it failed to apply the principles articulated Matter of Hashmi to petitioner's case); citing Matter of Hashimi, 24 I. & N. Dec. 785, 792 (BIA 2009) (setting forth criteria to be considered in evaluating whether to grant a motion to continue removal proceedings).

United States v. Aviles-Solarzano, 623 F.3d 470, 474 (7th Cir. Oct.

Cortez-Guillen v. Holder, 623 F.3d 933 (9th Cir. Oct. 5, 2010) (Although the Supreme Court has explained that there must be a realistic probability, not a theoretical possibility, that the State would apply its statute to conduct that falls outside the generic definition of a crime, Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez, 549 U.S. 183, 193, 127 S.Ct. 815, 166 L.Ed.2d 683 (2007), we cannot ... ignore the plain language of [the statute of conviction]. Cerezo, 512 F.3d at 1167.

Mendoza v. Holder, 623 F.3d 1299 (9th Cir., Oct. 27, 2010) (California conviction of robbery, in violation of Penal Code 211, was a crime involving moral turpitude), deferring to Matter of G-R-, 2 I. & N. Dec. 733, 734 (BIA 1946); Matter of Kim, 17 I. & N. Dec. 144, 145 (BIA 1979)).

Mendoza v. Holder, 623 F.3d 1299, 1303 (9th Cir., Oct. 27, 2010) (because Congress's intent is not clear regarding the definition of moral turpitude, we apply Chevron deference to the BIA's precedential case-by-case adjudications determining which crimes involve moral turpitude. Id. at 908-09. The BIA's interpretation is entitled to deference so long as it is a permissible construction of the statute. Id. at 909 (quoting Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 843, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984)).).