Lang v. Napolitano, 596 F.3d 426 (8th Cir. Mar. 1, 2010) (affirming dismissal of complaint for injunction prohibiting DHS from removing plaintiff and a writ of mandamus ordering them "to issue a Notice to Appear before an immigration judge," where the DHS's letter to plaintiff was a final administrative order of removal reviewable only in a court of appeals, and the order was final absent a legal or constitutional defect that could not be remedied by a direct petition for review, and no court could prevent its execution).

Munoz de Real v. Holder, ___ F.3d ___, 2010 WL 455404 (7th Cir. Feb. 11, 2010) (8 C.F.R. 1003.23(b)(1) divests the immigration court of jurisdiction to hear a motion to reopen from noncitizen who has already left the country).

Matter of Guerra, 24 I. & N. Dec. 37, 40 (BIA 2006) (non-exhaustive factors an Immigration Judge may consider in making a determination under INA 236(a) include whether the alien has a fixed address, his or her length of residence, family ties, employment history, record of appearance at court proceedings, criminal record - including the extensiveness of criminal activity, the recency of such activity, and the seriousness of the offenses, history of immigration violations, attempts to flee prosecution, and manner of entry into the United States).

Cervantes v. Holder, 597 F.3d 229 (4th Cir. Mar. 8, 2010) (noncitizens who entered five years after Honduras was initially designated for TPS could not meet "continuous presence" requirement; parents application for TPS and continuous residence could not be imputed to minor children who entered without inspection after the initial TPS designation).

Kporlor v. Holder, 597 F.3d 222 (4th Cir. Mar. 5, 2010) (federal courts of appeal lack jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(C) to review BIA denials of withholding of removal in cases involving crime of moral turpitude)

Claudio v. Holder, ___ F.3d ___ (5th Cir. Mar. 17, 2010) (a petitioner cannot exhaust his claims by raising all of them in a notice of appeal to the BIA, but addressing only some in a supporting brief before the BIA).

Orosco-Ordonez v. Napolitano, 598 F.3d 222 (5th Cir. Mar. 2, 2010) (the decision of a law enforcement agency to request a U-visa is discretionary; noncitizen may not file habeas petition to compel issuance).

Urbina-Mejia v. Holder, 597 F.3d 360 (6th Cir. Mar. 5, 2010) (persons who no longer wish to be members of a criminal gang constitute a particular social group for purposes of asylum and withholding of removal).

United States v. Davis, 234 F.Supp.2d 601 (E.D.Va.2002), affirmed 359 F.3d 340 (4th Cir. 2002) (adjudications of juvenile delinquency, under Virginia law, did not constitute prior "convictions" sufficient to constitute predicate conviction for federal offense of being felon in possession of firearm).

A court is not considered to have ruled on an argument that was not presented. See, e.g., RAV v. City of St. Paul, 112 S.Ct. 2538, 2545, 120 L.Ed.2d 305 (1992) ("It is of course contrary to all traditions of our jurisprudence to consider the law on [a] point conclusively resolved by broad language in cases where the issue was not presented or even envisioned"); United States v. Vroman, 975 F.2d 669, 672 (9th Cir. 1992) (precedent not controlling on issue not presented to prior panel), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 1611, 123 L.Ed.2d 172; United States v. Faulkner, 952 F.2d 1066, 1071 n.3 (9th Cir.