Bayo v. Napolitano, 593 F.3d 495 (7th Cir. Jan. 20, 2010) (en banc) (court has jurisdiction to review whether VWP waiver was valid and whether an exception to the wavier may be properly invoked (e.g. an asylum claim)).

Sanchez-Velasco v. Holder, 593 F.3d 733 (8th Cir. Jan. 20, 2010) (noncitizen failed to provide reasonably available corroborative evidence of 10 years presence; court found noncitizen had failed to present reasonably available corroborating evidence because parents who lived in the U.S. without documentation would not testify for fear of being placed in removal proceedings).

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.").

Esquivel-Garcia v. Holder, 593 F.3d 1025 (9th Cir. Jan. 28, 2010) (record of conviction that is inconclusive as to the exact nature of the controlled substance involved is sufficient to establish eligibility for cancellation of removal, placing on the government the burden of going forward to prove that the controlled substance the petitioner possessed was heroin or some other controlled substance listed under INA 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II)); following Sandoval-Lua v.

Matter of Martinez-Espinoza, 25 I. & N. Dec. 118, 123 (BIA 2009) ("Because the scope of section 212(h) is uncertain as it relates to drug paraphernalia offenses, we must resolve the uncertainty in a reasonable manner."), citing Neguise v. Holder, 129 S.Ct. 1159, 1163-1164 (2009).

Lee v. USCIS, __ F.3d __ (4th Cir. Jan. 25, 2010) (district courts lack jurisdiction to review USCIS denial of adjustment of status on the basis that 8 C.F.R. 245.10(j) was invalid under the APA).

Kellerman v. Holder, 592 F.3d 700 (6th Cir. Jan. 25, 2010) (noncitizen convicted by jury trial ineligible for INA 212(c) relief under St. Cyr).

Brady, "Defense Strategies: Matter of Almanza Arenas" at www.ilrc.org/criminal.php or in July 2009 Benders Immigration Bulletin.

National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild, Practice Advisory, "Immigration Court Jurisdiction to Conduct Bond Hearings Regardless Whether DHS Transfers Respondent After the Hearing Request is Filed." The model brief argues that 8 C.F.R. 1003.19(c) should be interpreted, consistent with its intent, to allow bond hearings to go forward even after a person is transferred.
See http://www.nationalimmigrationproject.org/PA_IMM_CRT_CONDUCT_BOND_HEARIN...