· Mandujano-Real v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 585 (9th Cir. 2008). The Court ruled that an identity theft conviction does not qualify as an aggravated felony theft conviction for immigration purposes because the elements of the identity theft statute encompass many forms of conduct that do not fall under the common law definition of theft. The Court also clarified that it was not appropriate to remand the case to the BIA where the BIA’s interpretation was not entitled to deference and the BIA had an opportunity to address the issues presented. Finally, the Court reconfirmed that the government may not rely upon an individual’s concession of removability that is incorrect as a legal matter.
· Suazo-Perez v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1222 (9th Cir. 2008). The Court held that the Immigration Judge and Board of Immigration Appeals erred in finding that the petitioner’s misdemeanor conviction for assault constituted a crime of violence and thus rendered him deportable despite his lawful permanent resident status.
· Hosseini v. Gonzales, 464 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2006). The Court found that an applicant for relief who has been identified as a supporter of a counterrevolutionary group in Iran qualifies for relief under the Convention Against Torture even where the individual had not experienced past torture.
· Hernandez-Guadarrama v. Ashcroft, 394 F.3d 674 (9th Cir. 2005). The Court reaffirmed an often-ignored principle: that the government cannot use statements against non-citizens in removal proceedings without making a reasonable attempt to have the affiants available for cross-examination. This point is especially crucial where the government itself removed the affiants instead of making them available at the removal proceedings.
· Cuevas-Gaspar v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 1013 (9th Cir. 2005). The Court held that a conviction for burglary in the State of Washington does not categorically constitute a crime involving moral turpitude. In addition, the Court ruled the lawful admission and residence of the parents can be imputed to a minor child for purposes of qualifying for cancellation of removal.
· Perez-Gonzalez v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 783 (9th Cir. 2004). The Court found that certain individuals with prior deportation orders are nonetheless entitled to have their applications for adjustment of status to lawful permanent residence along with the necessary waivers adjudicated before the government can moved to reinstate the prior order of removal. The Court held that notwithstanding the prior deportation or removal orders, such individuals are still eligible to become permanent residents. Before Perez-Gonzalez, the vast majority of these individuals were being summarily deported without a hearing and denied the opportunity to become permanent residents.
· Garcia-Lopez v. Ashcroft, 334 F.3d 840 (9th Cir. 2003) (1). The Court ruled that prior offense of grand theft would not be considered misdemeanor under California statute providing that “wobbler” offense was to be treated as misdemeanor after judgment imposed punishment other than imprisonment in state prison, but (2) California court's declaration that such offense was misdemeanor was binding on BIA.
· Castro-Cortez v. Ashcroft, 239 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir. 2001). The Court found that it had jurisdiction to directly review administrative reinstatement orders, and that the provision of Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) permitting INS to reinstate prior orders of removal did not apply retroactively.
