Robleto-Pastora v. Holder, 567 F.3d 437 (9th Cir. May 27, 2009) (a noncitizen who has adjusted status under INA 209(b) is no longer an asylee; the DHS does not have to terminate asylee status officially under INA 208(c)(2), (3), 8 C.F.R. 208.22, 208.24).

Robleto-Pastora v. Holder, 567 F.3d 437 (9th Cir. May 27, 2009) (LPR who was formerly an asylee may not seek to re-adjust under INA 209(b) with a waiver of inadmissibility under INA 209(c); LPRs must seek to re-adjust under INA 245, regardless of whether they were previously granted asylum), following similar cases in the context of former refugees, Gutnik v. Gonzales, 469 F.3d 683 (7th Cir. 2006); Saintha v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 234 (4th Cir. 2008); Matter of Smriko, 23 I. & N. Dec. 836 (BIA 2005), distinguishing Matter of KA, 23 I. & N. Dec.

Barrios v. Holder, 567 F.3d 451 (9th Cir. May 27, 2009) (a minor who seeks NACARA special rule cancellation of removal, under Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act 203, as a derivative, must personally satisfy the Act's requirement of seven years of continuous physical presence; the father's physical presence in the United States cannot be imputed to him to satisfy this requirement).

Castro de Mercado v. Mukasey, 566 F.3d 810 (9th Cir. May 19, 2009) (no petition for review jurisdiction to challenge BIA's evidentiary determinations or matters within the BIA's discretion).

Negrete v. Holder, 567 F.3d 419 (9th Cir. May 12, 2009) ("Although we have jurisdiction over colorable constitutional claims relating to discretionary denials of motions to reopen, we lack jurisdiction if the due process claim is merely an abuse of discretion claim re-packaged as a constitutional claim."); citing Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005); Torres-Aguilar v. INS, 246 F.3d 1267, 1271 (9th Cir.

Singh v. Holder, 568 F.3d 525 (5th Cir. May 14, 2009) (Virginia conviction of unlawful wounding, under Virginia Code 18.2-51 ["maliciously shoot, stab, cut, or wound any person or by any means cause him bodily injury, with the intent to maim, disfigure, disable, or kill"] is an aggravated felony crime of violence under INA 101(a)(43)(F), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(F) for purposes of barring naturalization under INA 101(f)(8), 8 U.S.C. 1101(f)(8)).

Singh v. Holder, 568 F.3d 525 (5th Cir. May 14, 2009) ("Singh, however, does not argue that any portion of the unlawful wounding statute under which he was convicted can be violated without using force sufficient to render the violation a crime of violence. [Footnote omitted.] He offers no hypothetical situations in which a person could commit an unlawful wounding that does not constitute a crime of violence, nor does he even attempt to parse the statute's language.

Singh v. Holder, 568 F.3d 525 (5th Cir. May 14, 2009) (aggravated felony crime of violence conviction occurred after November 29, 1990, and thus constituted a permanent bar to showing good moral character for purposes of naturalization, under INA 101(f)(8), 8 U.S.C. 1101(f)(8), where the sentence of one year or more occurred after that date, even though the plea of guilty occurred prior to that date); accord, Puello v. Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Servs., 511 F.3d 324, 329 (2d Cir. 2007) (under INA 101(a)(48)(A), 8 U.S.C.

Singh v. Holder, 568 F.3d 525 (5th Cir. May 14, 2009) (under INA 101(a)(48)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(48)(A), "formal judgment of guilt" is defined by reference to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(k)(1), which provides that "[i]n the judgment of conviction, the court must set forth the plea, the jury verdict or the court's findings, the adjudication, and the sentence."); Puello v. Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Servs., 511 F.3d 324, 329 (2d Cir. 2007); Perez v. Elwood, 294 F.3d 552, 562 (3d Cir. 2002) (same).

Lin v. Holder, 565 F.3d 971 (6th Cir. May 14, 2009) ("these claims have not been administratively exhausted because Lin did not present them in his brief for his BIA appeal. This Court does not have jurisdiction to consider claims that have not been administratively exhausted."), citing 8 U.S.C. 1252(d)(1); Ramani v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 554, 559-60 (6th Cir. 2004) (holding "only claims properly presented to the BIA and considered on their merits can be reviewed by this court in an immigration appeal").