The Law Office of Robert Jobe is reporting that the DHS is taking the position that INA 212(c) relief is still available to noncitizens in the Ninth Circuit who are charged with a ground of deportability, despite the Ninth Circuits decision in Abebe, because the federal regulations allow for INA 212(c) relief in deportation proceedings. Thanks to Robert Jobe.

Guam and Northern Mariana Islands added to VWP.
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/cnmi_ifr_2009-01-13.pdf

Guam and Northern Mariana Islands added to VWP.
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/cnmi_ifr_2009-01-13.pdf

IAP v. INS (now NWIPR v. CIS), Case No. 88-379R (W.D.Wash.) (legalization application period reopened from February 1, 2009 to Jan. 31, 2010 for persons who entered the U.S. on a nonimmigrant visa prior to Jan. 1, 1982 and who lived in the United States at least through 1988 may be eligible).



All the necessary forms and information for those wanting to know about the NWIRP settlement are available for download here:
http://sites.google.com/site/nwirpsettlementwiki/

Although 8 C.F.R. 1208.4(a)(5)(iii) mirrors Lozada, one could argue that it codifies its formal requirements for corroboration and bar regulation purposes, but does not rely on Lozada's jurisprudential rationale for existence. Extraordinary circumstances exceptions need only be "directly related" to the delay in filing. A lawyer's incompetence need not attach to any right to representation to be "directly related" to the delay in failure to file.

The Secretary of State, in an unclassified Advisory Opinion to the U.S. Embassy in Montevideo, stated that an expunged Washington state misdemeanor "first time, minor controlled substance offense relating only to possession" will not trigger inadmissibility as long as the alien intends to enter the U.S. from a port of entry in the 9th Circuit, following Lujan-Armendariz v. INS, 222 F.3d 728 (9th Cir. 2000). Thanks to the firm of Gibbs, Houston, Pauw in Seattle.

Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975 (9th Cir. Jan. 12, 2009) (court lacks jurisdiction to review IJs determination of whether respondents established exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a child who had been in special education for speech development, but was showing improvement, and another child who was an honors student in English, but had no knowledge of Spanish).

Diaz-Covarrubias v. Mukasey, 551 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. Jan. 2009) ("Administrative closure is a procedure by which an IJ or the BIA removes a case from its docket as a matter of administrative convenience. In re Gutierrez-Lopez, 21 I. & N. Dec. 479, 480 (BIA 1996) (quoting In re Amico, 19 I. & N. Dec. 652, 654 n. 1 (BIA 1988)). This procedure is not described in the INA or federal regulations, but the BIA has stated that it will not administratively close a case if closure is opposed by either of the parties.

Singh v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 553 F.3d 1369 (11th Cir. Dec. 31, 2008) (conviction rendered in adult court constitutes a conviction for immigration purposes, no matter how old the noncitizen was at the time of the offense).

A "voluntary return" may sometimes refer to a procedure different from "voluntary departure." When referring to something other than voluntary departure, the term generally means allowing a noncitizen to return to (usually) Mexico or Canada without proceedings and without a determination of removability.