Source: http://ilw.com/articles/2009,0507-tooby.shtm
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 12:52:19+00:00

Document:
Roman v. Mukasey, 553 F.3d 184 (2d Cir. Jan. 21, 2009) (“There is no legal or constitutional error in the IJ and BIA's determination that Roman's admission of removability-which explicitly admitted the allegations in the NTA “and the basis for the charge of removal”-satisfied the government's evidentiary burden. “[W]hen an admission is made as a tactical decision by an attorney in a deportation proceeding, the admission is binding on his alien client and may be relied upon as evidence of deportability.” Matter of Velasquez, 19 I. & N. Dec. 377, 382 (B.I.A.1986); cf. Ali v. Reno, 22 F.3d 442, 446 (2d Cir.1994) (alien bound by counsel's admission that a timely answer had not been filed).”).
SAFE HAVEN – INTERFERING WITH POLICE OFFICER United States v. Gagnon, 553 F.3d 1021 (6th Cir. Jan. 29, 2009) (federal conviction in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111, punishes activity less serious than simple assault; defendant who had spit at border patrol officers and forced himself to vomit was therefore guilty under 18 U.S.C. § 111). Note: counsel can therefore argue that a conviction under this statute is not necessarily a crime of violence or a crime of moral turpitude. But see United States v. Chapman, 528 F.3d 1215, 1219 (9th Cir. 2008) (concluding that its construction of § 111 “leaves no room for a conviction that does not involve at least some form of assault”).
Stepanovic v. Filip, 554 F.3d 673 (7th Cir. Jan. 28, 2009) (VAWA cancellation “extreme cruelty” determination is within the discretion of the Attorney General; therefore the court lacks jurisdiction to review under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2); over petition for review of BIA holding noncitizen ineligible for VAWA cancellation of removal, under INA § 240A(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2), for determining he was not subjected to extreme cruelty; BIA correctly applied the “extreme cruelty” legal standard in requiring petitioner show psychiatric or medical documents, or other evidence). See also Wilmore v. Gonzales, 455 F.3d 524, 528 (5th Cir. 2006); Perales-Cumpean v. Gonzales, 429 F.3d 977, 982 (10th Cir. 2005). But see Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 345 F.3d 824, 833-35 (9th Cir. 2003).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 111
 § 111
 v. 
 § 111
 v. 
 § 1252
 § 240
 § 1229
 v. 
 v. 
 v.