Martinez v. Mukasey, 551 F.3d 113 (2d Cir. Dec. 18, 2008) ("The very basis of the categorical approach is that the sole ground for determining whether an immigrant was convicted of an aggravated felony is the minimum criminal conduct necessary to sustain a conviction under a given statute. Dalton, 257 F.3d at 204. This does not require Martinez to prove how little marihuana he had or the nature of the transfer, so long as his conviction could have been based on a nonremunerative transfer of a small amount of marihuana.

De Hoyos v. Mukasey, 551 F.3d 339 (5th Cir. Dec. 8, 2008) (prior grant of cancellation for conviction following drug conviction did not preclude later use of that conviction in subsequent removal proceedings; cancellation of removal only works to avoid removal under the proceeding in which it has been granted).

Massis v. Mukasey, 549 F.3d 631 (4th Cir. Dec.9, 2008) ("an alien's failure to dispute an issue on appeal to the BIA constitutes a failure to exhaust administrative remedies that bars judicial review."), following Kurfees v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 275 F.3d 332 (4th Cir.2001).

Massis v. Mukasey, 549 F.3d 631 (4th Cir. Dec. 9, 2008) ("The BIA's denial of a motion to reopen is reviewed for an abuse of discretion and should be reversed only if the decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Afanwi v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 788, 794 (4th Cir.2008) (citing Immigration & Naturalization Serv. v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24 (1992); Barry v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 741, 744-45 (4th Cir.2006)).

Massis v. Mukasey, 549 F.3d 631 (4th Cir. Dec.9, 2008) ("The state of the law as it existed at the time of Massis's removal hearing supports the BIA's determination. Accord Mbea v. Gonzales, 482 F .3d 276, 281 (4th Cir.2007) (noting that the law "then in effect" at the time of an alien's conviction would apply to the alien's removal proceedings (citing Immigration & Naturalization Serv. v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289 (2001))).").

United States v. Connolly, 552 F.3d 86(2d Cir. Dec. 4, 2008) (denying claim of U.S. citizenship where respondent was illegitimate child of U.S. citizen father who, at the time of birth, was no longer a member of the U.S. Army Reserves).

Samuels v. Chertoff, 550 F.3d 252 (2d Cir. Dec. 19, 2008) (regulation at 8 U.S.C. 1212.7(d), requiring a showing of exceptional and extremely unusual hardship by noncitizens convicted of violent crimes is not inconsistent with INA 212(h), or arbitrary or capricious, and may be applied to convictions predating its publication date; case remanded because BIA may have misapplied the regulation in this case, since it only considered hardship to the petitioners family, but not the petitioner himself.)

Mora v. Mukasey, 550 F.3d 231 (2d Cir. Dec. 16, 2008) (noncitizens inadmissible under INA 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(I) because they entered the United States after accruing more than one year unlawful presence are unable to adjust status under INA 245(i); deferring to Matter of Briones, 24 I. & N. Dec. 355 (BIA 2007)).

Ragoonanan v. USCIS, 2007 WL 4465208 (D. Minn. Dec. 18, 2007) (unpublished) (district court ruled against USCIS, holding a recent DUI conviction was not a basis to deny naturalization).

Ragoonanan v. USCIS, 2007 WL 4465208 (D. Minn. Dec. 18, 2007) (unpublished) (district court ruled against USCIS, holding a recent DUI conviction was not a basis to deny naturalization).