United States v. Castro-Guevarra, 575 F.3d 550 (5th Cir. Jul. 13, 2009) ("Because an 'abstract of judgment is generated by the [convicting] court's clerical staff, ... it is not an "explicit factual finding by the trial judge to which the defendant assented," which the court may consider under Shepard.' . . . We, therefore, may not rely on any information contained in the abstract of judgment when determining whether Castro-Guevarra's state conviction is an enumerated offense for enhancement purposes."), quoting United States v. Gutierrez-Ramirez, 405 F.3d 352, 359 (5th Cir.

Nguyen v. Holder, 571 F.3d 524 (6th Cir. Jul. 2, 2009) (California conviction of auto theft, in violation of what is now codified at Penal Code 487(d)(i) and 18 U.S.C. 16(b), both criminal statutes, are ambiguous: "[A]ny doubt about [deportability] must be resolved in favor of the . . . petitioner who is subject to deportation pursuant to an ambiguous criminal statute. . . . Because we cannot find that auto theft is "unambiguously" a crime of violence under Section 16(b), we should follow the ancient rule and overrule the administrative agency in this case."; citing United States v.

Madrigal v. Holder, 572 F.3d 239 (6th Cir. Jul.9, 2009) (deportation by the government did not trigger automatic withdrawal, under 8 C.F.R. 1003.4, of appeal to BIA to review IJ denial of motion to reopen because respondent had not left of her own volition).
ttp://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/09a0241p-06.pdf

United States v. Hernandez-Arenado, 571 F.3d 662 (7th Cir. Jul. 6, 2009) (noncitizens held by ICE in a facility run by the Bureau of Prisons are not in the custody of the BOP for purposes of determining habeas corpus jurisdiction, even in light of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (the "Act"), 18 U.S.C. 4248, et seq.).

Herrera-Inirio v. INS, 208 F.3d 299, 304-06 (1st Cir. 2000) (noting that the language of 1101(a)(48)(A) "leaves nothing to the imagination" and that state rehabilitative programs that do not vacate a conviction on the merits "have no bearing in determining whether an alien is to be considered convicted under section 1101(a)(48)(A)."); United States v. Campbell, 167 F.3d 94, 96-98 (2d Cir. 1999) (federal sentencing case); Acosta v. Ashcroft, 341 F.3d 218, 222 (3d Cir.

Am. Academy of Religion v. Napolitano, 573 F.3d 115 (2d Cir. Jul. 17, 2009) (district court had jurisdiction to consider claim that visa denial by consular officer violated the First Amendment claim, despite the doctrine of consular nonreviewability: "We conclude that, where a plaintiff, with standing to do so, asserts a First Amendment claim to have a visa applicant present views in this country, we should apply Mandel to a consular officer's denial of a visa.

Matter of Adetiba, 20 I. & N. Dec. 506 (BIA 1992) (rejecting common plan test for single scheme), followed in Balogun v. INS, 31 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 1994); Akindemowo v. U.S. INS, 61 F.3d 282 (4th Cir. 1995) Iredia v. INS, 981 F.2d 847 (5th Cir. 1993); Abdelqadar v. Gonzales, 413 F.3d 668 (7th Cir. 2005); Nguyen v. INS, 991 F.2d 621 (10th Cir. 1993), contra, Nason v. INS, 394 F.2d 223 (2d Cir. 1968) (a specific coherent plan of action to constitute a single scheme of criminal misconduct.); see Michel v. INS, 206 F.3d 2000 (2d Cir.

Matter of Lopez-Aldana, 25 I. & N. Dec. 49 (BIA 2009) (applicant for Temporary Protected Status may seek de novo review by an Immigration Judge in removal proceedings, regardless of whether all appeal rights before the DHS have been exhausted), clarifying Matter of Barrientos, 24 I. & N. Dec. 100 (BIA 2007).

Matter of A-S-B-, 24 I&N Dec. 493 (BIA 2008) (BIA retains independent judgment and discretion, subject to applicable governing standards, regarding pure questions of law and the application of a particular standard of law); 8 C.F.R l003.I(d)(3)(ii).

Matter of Werner, 25 I. & N. Dec. 45, 48 (BIA 2009) (IJ lacks jurisdiction to consider a bond request from a person admitted through the Visa Waiver Program and who sought asylum and withholding of removal upon being detained by DHS).



NOTE: An earlier contrary decision, Matter of Gallardo, 21 I. & N. Dec. 210 (BIA 1996), was held to have been superseded by 8 C.F.R. 1208.2(c).