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.

Jimenez Rice v. Holder, ___ F.3d ___, 2010 WL 669262 (9th Cir. Feb. 26, 2010) (California conviction of being under the influence of a controlled substance, in violation of Health & Safety Code 11550(a), that was expunged under Penal Code 1203.4(a), no longer constituted a conviction for purposes of establishing a statutory bar to showing Good Moral Character, under INA 101(f)(3), 8 U.S.C. 1101(f)(3)), following Lujan-Armendariz v. INS, 222 F.3d 728 (9th Cir. 2000) and Cardenas-Uriarte v. INS, 227 F.3d 1132 (9th Cir. 2000).

Jimenez Rice v. Holder, ___ F.3d ___, 2010 WL 669262 (9th Cir. Feb. 26, 2010) (California conviction of being under the influence of a controlled substance, in violation of Health & Safety Code 11550(a), that was expunged under Penal Code 1203.4(a), no longer constituted a conviction for purposes of establishing a statutory bar to showing Good Moral Character, under INA 101(f)(3), 8 U.S.C. 1101(f)(3)), following Lujan-Armendariz v. INS, 222 F.3d 728 (9th Cir. 2000) and Cardenas-Uriarte v. INS, 227 F.3d 1132 (9th Cir. 2000).

Romero v. Holder, 568 F.3d 1054, 1062 (9th Cir. 2009) ("the facts underlying a conviction that would have been eligible for relief under the FFOA, but was expunged under a state rehabilitative statute, cannot serve as an admission of a drug offense, statutorily barring a finding of good moral character under 8 U.S.C. 1101(f)(3).").

Gao v. Holder, ___ F.3d ___, ___, 2010 WL 624312 (4th Cir. Feb. 23, 2010) (federal conviction for unlawful export of military technology, in violation of 50 U.S.C. 1702 and 1705(b), was a "particularly serious crime," even though it was not classified as an aggravated felony: "We defer to the BIA's reasoned view that an offense need not be an aggravated felony to qualify as a particularly serious crime for purposes of withholding.

Vasquez-Hernandez v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1053,1055 n.2 (9th Cir. Jan. 6, 2010) (leaving open the question of whether an applicant for non-LPR cancellation of removal, who has a conviction that fits within the petty offense exception to inadmissibility, under INA 212(a)(2)(A)(ii)(II), is barred from cancellation of removal because of the conviction, where the "offense" of conviction is not described by any non-CMT grounds of deportation).

Vasquez-Hernandez v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. Jan. 6, 2010) (California conviction of corporal injury of a spouse, in violation of Penal Code 273.5(a), which fit within the petty offense exception to inadmissibility, nonetheless disqualified respondent from eligibility for cancellation of removal for non-LPRs, under INA 240A(b), because the same offense could have been grounds for deportation as a crime of domestic violence, under INA 237(a)(2)(E)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(E)(i)).

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).

Nunez v. Holder, 594 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. Feb. 10, 2010)



The Ninth Circuit described the difficult moral turpitude question as follows: