Matter of Grijalva, 19 I. & N. Dec. 713 (BIA 1988) (BIA will accept a respondent's testimony as to proof of weight of marijuana possessed, for purposes of establishing that the defendant possessed 30 grams or less).

Rotimi v. Holder, 577 F.3d 133 (2d Cir. Aug. 14, 2009) (per curiam) (the phrase "lawfully resided continuously" used in INA 212(h), 8 U.S.C. 1182(h), is ambiguous, and the BIA's interpretation is reasonable, so the court of appeals grants Chevron deference to its conclusion that respondent "did not lawfully reside in the United States during those periods in which he was an applicant for asylum or for adjustment of status and lacked any other basis for claiming lawful residence."), affirming In re Rotimi, 24 I. & N. Dec.

Lanferman v. BIA, 576 F.3d 84 (2d Cir. Aug. 5, 2009) (court of appeals will not consider on petition for review of removal order whether guilty plea was obtained in violation of constitutional rights: "On appeal, Lanferman first argues that the agency erred in relying on his guilty plea, because that plea was obtained in violation of certain constitutional rights. This 'contention is nothing more than a collateral attack on his state conviction. Collateral attacks are not available in a ... petition challenging the BIA's removal decision.'"); citing Abimbola v.

Nevarez v. Holder, 572 F.3d 605 (9th Cir. Jul. 8, 2009) (remand to BIA to address how to treat noncitizens with grants of voluntary departure and who have filed motions to reopen in cases pending when Dada v. Mukasey, __U.S.__, 128 S.Ct. 2307 (Jun. 16, 2008) (noncitizens who file motion to reopen must request withdrawal of voluntary departure) was decided).

Nevarez v. Holder, 572 F.3d 605 (9th Cir. Jul. 8, 2009) (remand to BIA to address the issue of whether a subsequent request to consider motion to reopen sua sponte is barred under INA 240(c)(7)(A) if the first motion was rejected as untimely and not fully considered by the BIA).

Lovan v. Holder, 574 F.3d 990 (8th Cir. Jul. 31, 2009) (St. Cyr applies to respondents who were convicted following a trial, so respondent is eligible for relief under former INA 212(c)); following Atkinson v. Attorney General, 479 F.3d 222, 230 (3d Cir. 2007) (non-citizen need not show "actual reliance" to seek relief under former INA 212(c); but see Carranza-De Salinas v. Gonzales, 477 F.3d 200, 206-09 (5th Cir. 2007) (non-citizen convicted after trial must show actual reliance on the possibility of INA 212(c) relief to be eligible for that relief now); see also Wilson v.

Lovan v. Holder, 574 F.3d 990 (8th Cir. Jul. 31, 2009) (strongly suggesting that an LPR who commits a CIMT, leaves the U.S. and is re-admitted, and is then put into immigration proceedings as an aggravated felon should be eligible for a waiver under INA 212(c), despite lack of a comparable ground, because the immigration authorities should not have re-admitted the LPR upon seeking readmission), citing In re G-A-, 7 I. & N. Dec. 274 (B.I.A.1956); In re L-, 1 I. & N. Dec. 1 (BIA 1940).

Herrera v. USCIS, 571 F.3d 881 (9th Cir. Jul. 6, 2009) (amendment of 8 U.S.C. 1155 did not alter USCIS authority to revoke a previous approval of a visa petition "at any time" for "good and sufficient cause.").

Madrigal v. Holder, 572 F.3d 239 (6th Cir. Jul.9, 2009) (BIA appeal is not automatically withdrawn pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 1003.4 when DHS deports the noncitizen before the BIA decides the appeal); see Long v. Gonzales, 420 F.3d 516, 520 (5th Cir. 2005) (the principle that "waiver is an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege" is applicable to the operation of the 8 C.F.R. 1003.4 withdrawal provision).

Ovalles v. Holder, 577 F.3d 288 (5th Cir. Jul.27, 2009) (upholding 8 C.F.R. 1003.2(d) bar to filing motions to reopen and reconsider by noncitizens already deported from the United States), following Navarro-Miranda v. Gonzales, 330 F.3d 672, 675-76 (5th Cir. 2003). But see, William v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 329, 331-34 (4th Cir. 2007); Contreras-Rodriguez v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 462 F.3d 1314, 1317 (11th Cir. 2006); Cardoso-Tlaseca v. Gonzales, 460 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. August 21, 2006).