The 2d Cir remanded a "sexual abuse of a minor" case where the Board performed an odd divisibility analysis, finding that it could use indictment, etc., to get to the underlying conduct, even in the absence of a statute that had divisible parts. The 2d Cir remanded to the Board for a new analysis, but did not create new law.
The 2d Cir remanded to the Board for the Board to enunciate a consistent position on IUD insertion. In this case, the Petitioner was found ineligible due to the persecutor bar, because she had worked as a family planning nurse. But in other cases, the Board found that forcible IUD insertion is not persecution.
The BIA refused to reopen or remand cases where arriving aliens were eligible to adjust status before USCIS. The 2d Cir found the Board's reasoning irrational, and remanded for the Board to decide the cases anew.
The 2d Cir held that an individual's confession to the police did not implicate the kinds of quid pro quo or reliance implicated by a guilty plea, so retroactivity concerns did not apply. The Court also saw no reason for someone to wait to apply for 212(c) relief affirmatively until they became ineligible, so found no reliance on 212(c) in this case.
Second Circuit 
