In an unpublished decision, the Third Circuit followed Nijhawan in determining that an alien was removable for an aggravated felony under section 101(a)(43)(M)(i).

In Matter of Velasquez-Rios, the BIA held that it must look at the language of a state statute at the time of conviction to determine if a sentence of one year or more could be imposed

In this article, we examine INA 101(a)(43)(C), the aggravated felony for illicit trafficking in firearms, explosives, or destructive devices.

In Matter of Ding, the BIA held that the term “prostitution” in INA 101(a)(43)(K)(i) is not limited to offenses involving sexual intercourse

In Matter of Sanchez-Lopez, the BIA held that a California stalking offense conviction under section 646.9 is not a crime of stalking under INA 237(a)(2)(E)(i).

On April 6, 2018, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) issued a published decision in Matter of Marquez Conde, 27 I&N Dec. 251 (BIA 2018). In Matter of Marquez Conde, the Board reaffirmed its decision in Matter of Pickering, 23 I&N Dec. 621 (BIA 2003) regarding the validity of vacated convictions for immigration purposes under section 101(a)(48)(A) of the INA, and modified its decision in order to apply it to cases arising in the jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The other Federal circuit courts had already adopted Matter of Pickering. Regarding vacated convictions, the Board held that a conviction that is vacated based on a procedural or substantive defect in the underlying criminal proceedings does not remain valid for immigration purposes. However, a conviction that is vacated for reasons other than a substantive defect in the underlying criminal proceedings, it remains in place for immigration purposes.