Anaya-Ortiz v. Holder, 594 F.3d 673 (9th Cir. Jan. 25, 2010), withdrawing and superseding opinion previously published at 553 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir. Jan. 27, 2009) ("We do not have jurisdiction to evaluate discretionary decisions by the Attorney General, see 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), and therefore lack jurisdiction over the BIA's ultimate determination that Anaya committed a "particularly serious crime" when he drunkenly drove his car into an elderly victim's house and caused part of the wall to collapse on her."); see Unuakhaulu v.

Anaya-Ortiz v. Holder, (9th Cir. Jan. 25, 2010) (either party may introduce all reliable evidence concerning whether a conviction constitutes a particularly serious crime), withdrawing and superseding opinion previously published at 553 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir. Jan. 27, 2009); deferring to Matter of NAM, 24 I. & N. Dec.

Anaya-Ortiz v. Holder, 594 F.3d 673 (9th Cir. Jan. 25, 2010) (the Immigration Judge may consider respondent's testimony at the removal hearing in holding that he had been convicted of a "particularly serious crime"; "Where the BIA does not make an explicit adverse credibility finding, we must assume that [the petitioner's] factual contentions are true."), withdrawing and superseding opinion previously published at 553 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir. Jan. 27, 2009); see Matter of NAM, 24 I. & N. Dec.

While not as good as an S-Visa, ICE is granting "deferred action" to cooperators which allows a non-resident to stay in the country for a year, and can be extended to a second year. Employment authorization can also be issued. Here is how the process was explained to a public defenders office by an ICE official:



Questions for planning purposes.

While not as good as an S-Visa, ICE is granting "deferred action" to cooperators which allows a non-resident to stay in the country for a year, and can be extended to a second year. Employment authorization can also be issued. Here is how the process was explained to a public defenders office by an ICE official:



Questions for planning purposes.

Anaya-Ortiz v. Holder, 594 F.3d 673 (9th Cir. Jan. 25, 2010), withdrawing and superseding opinion previously published at 553 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir. Jan. 27, 2009).



NOTE: This decision withdraws a prior finding that a notation in an abstract or minute order could be used to identify the elements of the offense. This restores prior Ninth Circuit precedent. See, e.g., United States v. Vidal, 504 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc). See ILRC practice advisory by Kathy Brady at: http://www.ilrc.org/immigration_law/pdf/Anaya_amended_practice%20advisor...

Matter of Martinez-Espinoza, 25 I. & N. Dec. 118, 123 (BIA 2009) (INA 212(h) availability for noncitizens with a single conviction for an offense "related to" first-time simple possession of marijuana is "circumstance-specific," rather than tied to the elements of the crime of conviction; possession of paraphernalia conviction may fit within the 30 gram exception; noncitizen must show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that his offense fits within the 30 gram exception in INA 212(h) waiver), citing Nijhawan v. Holder, 129 S. Ct. 2294, 2298-2299 (2009).

Coyt v. Holder, 593 F.3d 902 (9th Cir. Jan. 20, 2010) (involuntary physical removal of petitioner by the United States did result in automatic withdrawal of motion to reopen; 8 C.F.R. 1003.2(d) is ultra vires to the INA as applied to noncitizens removed from the U.S. by the DHS).

Sanchez-Velasco v. Holder, 593 F.3d 733 (8th Cir. Jan. 20, 2010) (noncitizens have no right to due process in purely discretionary remedy of cancellation of removal, therefore noncitizen could not claim IJ violated due process by excluding witnesses).

Esquivel-Garcia v. Holder, 593 F.3d 1025 (9th Cir. Jan. 28, 2010) ("the petitioner's testimony that he thought the substance was heroin does not alter the record of conviction.").