Retuta v. Holder, 591 F.3d 1181 (9th Cir. Jan. 7, 2010) (California conviction of possession of methamphetamines, under Health & Safety Code 11377(a), did not constitute a controlled substances conviction, within the meaning of INA 237(a)(2)(B)(i), 8 U.S.C.

Retuta v. Holder, 591 F.3d 1181 (9th Cir. Jan. 7, 2010) (California fine imposed as part of the sentence as a result of a plea in a criminal case constituted sufficient punishment to create a conviction, within the meaning of INA 101(a)(48)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(48)(B): "We need not decide whether we must give deference to BIA's decision in Cabrera that costs or restitution are sufficiently punitive to be a "punishment" or "penalty," as the minute order clearly states the amount involved to be a fine."), citing Matter of Cabrera, 24 I. & N. Dec.

Retuta v. Holder, 591 F.3d 1181 (9th Cir. Jan. 7, 2010) (the statutory definition of "conviction," INA 101(a)(48), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(48), does not include criminal judgments whose only consequence is a suspended non-incarceratory sanction because in the first part of its statutory definition of conviction, INA 101(a)(48)(A), 8 U.S.C.

Retuta v. Holder, 591 F.3d 1181 (9th Cir. Jan. 7, 2010) ("We would add, however, that if we were to view the statute as ambiguous, we would think it our duty to resolve the ambiguity favorably to the alien, pursuant to the principle of lenity applicable with respect to the gravity of removal. See I.N.S. v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 449 (1987); Lara-Cazares v. Gonzales, 408 F.3d 1217, 1221 (9th Cir.2005). Removal is a harsh sanction, and profoundly so when, as here, the alien came to America as a small child and has spent almost two decades in this country.").

Retuta v. Holder, 591 F.3d 1181 (9th Cir. Jan. 7, 2010) ("The BIA did take a position on the issue and it is one with which, as explained above, we do not agree. Remand is not appropriate when the BIA addressed an issue and its opinion is reversed."), citing Li v. Ashcroft, 356 F.3d 1153, 1161 n. 7 (9th Cir. 2004).

Retuta v. Holder, 591 F.3d 1181 (9th Cir. Jan. 7, 2010) ("This court must give deference under Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), to the "agency's construction of the statute [that] it administers." Hernandez-Guadarrama v. Ashcroft, 394 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2005). However, in order to be entitled to Chevron deference, the agency's construction must have been issued in "binding agency precedent on-point (either in the form of a regulation or a published BIA case)." Kyung Park v.

Retuta v. Holder, 591 F.3d 1181 (9th Cir. Jan. 7, 2010) (to warrant Chevron deference, as a "binding agency precedent on-point," a BIA precedent must be on point: "Second, Ozkok did not address the particular situation present here-namely, whether a suspended fine is sufficient punishment to satisfy the definition of conviction. Ozkok addressed the imposition of probation and the actual enforcement of non-incarceratory penalties, but not the "imposition" of suspended non-incarceratory penalties.").

Retuta v. Holder, 591 F.3d 1181 (9th Cir. Jan. 7, 2010) (California fine imposed as part of the sentence as a result of a plea in a criminal case constituted sufficient punishment to create a conviction, within the meaning of INA 101(a)(48)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(48)(B): "We need not decide whether we must give deference to BIA's decision in Cabrera that costs or restitution are sufficiently punitive to be a "punishment" or "penalty," as the minute order clearly states the amount involved to be a fine."), citing Matter of Cabrera, 24 I. & N. Dec.

Matter of Gamero, 25 I. & N. Dec. 164 (BIA 2010) (noncitizen may ask BIA to remand case for new voluntary departure period where IJ failed to provide all advisals required under 8 C.F.R. 1240.26(c)(3), following grant of voluntary departure).

Kawashima v. Holder, 593 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. Jan. 27, 2010) (motion to reopen to seek 212(c) relief, in light of St. Cyr, even if timely filed before April 26, 2005, was properly rejected as failing to comply with 8 C.F.R. 1003.44(h) because the motion did not contain the notation "special motion to seek 212(c) relief.").