Jean-Louis v. Att'y Gen., __ F.3d __ (3d Cir. Oct. 6, 2009) (Pennsylvania conviction for simple assault on a child under 12, in violation of 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. 2701(b)(2), is not a crime of moral turpitude, since the offense includes, at a minimum causing reckless in jury to a child, but without knowledge of the childs age).

Jean-Louis v. Att'y Gen., 582 F.3d 462 (3d Cir. Oct. 6, 2009) (the term "crime involving moral turpitude" is a term of art; the use of the term "involving" does not "invite" an examination into the underlying circumstances of the offense). See also, Nijhawan v. Holder, 129 S.Ct.

Jean-Louis v. Att'y Gen., 582 F.3d 462 (3d Cir. Oct. 6, 2009) (Brand-X deference is not due where the attorney generals reasoning is based on an impermissible reading of the statute).

Lagunas-Salgado v. Holder, 584 F.3d 707 (7th Cir. Oct. 13, 2009) (federal conviction for violation of 18 U.S.C.

Miguel-Miguel v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 941 (9th Cir. August 29, 2007) (Matter of Y-L-, 23 I. & N. Dec. 270 (Op. Att'y Gen.2002), disapproved of on other grounds by Zheng v. Ashcroft, 332 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir.2003), creating a presumption that a drug trafficking offense is a particularly serious crime was impermissibly retroactive as applied to noncitizen with conviction pre-dating that decision).



The test is this:

Rosillo-Puga v. Holder, 580 F.3d 1147 (10th Cir. Sept. 15, 2009) (8 C.F.R. 1003.23(b)(1), barring motions to reopen filed by noncitizens who have already departed the United States, is a valid exercise of the Attorney General's Congressionally-delegated rule-making authority, and does not violate 8 U.S.C. 1229a(c)(6)(A) or (7)(A)).

Castillo-Cruz v. Holder, 581 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. Sept. 17, 2009)

United States v. Jennings, 515 F.3d 980 (9th Cir. Feb. 4, 2008) ("Wash. Rev.Code 46.61.024 explicitly encompasses conduct that does not present a potential risk of harm to others, namely conduct that only "indicat[es] a wanton or wilful disregard for the ... property of others." The statute is therefore expressly broader than the generic definition of a violent felony, and does not, under our case law, come within the class of statutes covered by Duenas-Alvarez and James. See Grisel, 488 F.3d at 850 ("Where ...

Mushtaq v. Holder, __ F.3d __ (9th Cir. Sept. 23, 2009) (BIA correctly imputed parents knowledge of inadmissibility to petitioner in denying application for waiver under INA 212(k)).

Mercado-Zazueta v. Holder, 580 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. Sept. 8, 2009) (a parent's status as a lawful permanent resident is imputed to the unemancipated minor children residing with that parent for purposes of eligibility for cancellation of removal. INA 240A(a)(1)), applying reasoning of Cuevas-Gaspar v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 1013 (9th Cir. 2005) (7 years presence of parents should be imputed to unemancipated minor children for LPR cancellation purposes).