P u rsua n t t o F ed era l R u le of A p p ell ate P roc ed u re 4 3 (c)(2), E ri c H
. H o lder, Jr. is 1 su b stitu ted f

o r M ich a e l B . M u k a se ya s re sp o n d e n t. 08-1862 -ag Garc i a -P a dronv. Hold er UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F ORTH E S EC ON D C IR C U IT A ugus tT erm , 2008 ( A r gued: D ece m ber8, 2008 D eci ded: February26, 2009) D ocketN o. 08- 1862- ag E MI GD O L OO ES KY G A R C IA -P AD R ON , P et i t i on er,

— v . — E RI C H. H OL DER , J R ., U NI TED S TATE S A TTO R NEY G ENE RAL , 1

R e sp o n d e n t. B e f o re: K EARSE , R AG GI , and L I VING ST ON , C i rcui tJud ges.

Pet i t i on forr evi ew of a j udgm entof the B oar d of Imm i gr at i on A ppeal s di s m i s s i ng an appea l fr om an I m m i gr at i on J udge’ s or der deny i ng pet i t i oner w ai ver of i nadmi s s i bi l i tyunder fo rm er se cti o n 2 1 2 (c) o f the Im m igrati o n an d N ati o n ali tyA ct, o n the g rou n d that p eti ti o n er’s convi ct i on of pet i tl ar cenyaft erthe ef fec t i ve dat e of the I l l egal I m m i gr at i on R eform and I m m i gr antR es pons i bi l i tyA ctof 1996 ( “I I R I R A ”) r ender ed hi m i nel i gi bl e fors uch r el i ef.2

W e conc l ude t hat s ect i on 309( c) of II R I R A pr es erves pet i t i oner ’ s el i gi bi l i tyforr el i ef unde r form er s ect i on 212( c) beca us e pet i t i oner ’ s deport at i on pr ocee di ng comm ence d pr i ort o t he
e f f e c tiv e d a te o f

II R IR A
. Pet i t i on G R A N T E D , j udgm entV A C A T E D , and ca s e R E M A N D E D forfur ther proceed i ng s.

M ATTHE W L. G UA DA GN O (J u le s E . C o v e n , K e rr yW . B re tz , on the br i ef ), B re tz & C o v e n , L L P , N e w Y o rk , N e w Y o rk , f orpet i t i oner . J ES SE M. B L ESS , T r i a l At t o rn e y , Of f i c e o f I mm i g r a t i o n L i t i g a t i o n ( Gr e g o r yG. K at sas, A ssi st ant A t t orneyG eneral , C i vil D i vis i on , JenniferP ai sner W i l l i am s, S e n io r L itig a tio n C o u n s e l, on the br i ef ) , C ivil D i vi s i on, U
. S. D epart m entof J u s tic e , W a s h in g to n , D .C ., f orr es pondent
.

R EEN A R AG GI , C i r cui tJudge : E m i gdo L ooes ky G ar ci a- Padr on pet i t i ons forr evi ew of the M ar ch 20, 2008 or derof the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) , w hi ch di s m i s s ed G ar ci a- Padr on’ s appea l fr om th e A p ril 1 3 , 2 0 0 6 w ritte n d e c is io n o f Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e (“ IJ” ) M a rg a re t M c M a n u s, in
w hi ch the I J deni ed pet i t i oner’ s r eques tforw ai verof i nadmi s s i bi l i tyunderform ers ect i on 212( c) of the I m m i gr at i on and N atur al i zat i on A ct( “I N A ”) , 8 U
. S. C
. § 1 1 8 2 (c) ( r epea l ed 1996)
. See In r e G ar ci a- Padr on, N o. A 30 868 457 ( B
. I
. A
. M ar . 20, 2008) , aff’ g N o. A 30 868 4 5 7 (Im m ig. C t. N ew Y o rk C ityA p r. 1 3 , 2 0 0 6 ). B ec au se w e ide n ti fylega l error i n the B IA ’s3

fai l ur e t o appl yt he l aw as i t exi s t ed befor e the I l l egal I m m i gr at i on R eform and I m m i gr ant R es pons i bi l i tyA ctof 1996 ( “I I R I R A ”) , Pub. L
. N o. 104- 208, § 304( b) , 110 St at . 3009- 546, 3009- 597, t o pet i t i oner ’ s r eques tfor s ect i on 212( c) r el i ef, w e gr antthe pet i t i on, vaca t e the B I A ju d g m e n t, an d re m a n d th is c a se to th e a g e n c yf o r f u rth e r p ro c e e d in g s c o n sis ten t w ith th is o p in io n . I . Backg r ound Pet i t i onerG ar ci a- Padr on i s a ci t i zen of the D om i ni can Republ i c w ho has been a l aw ful perm anentr es i dentof th e U n it ed St at es s i nce A ugus t21, 1972. H e has been
conv ict ed o f n u m er ous cr i m es i n N ew Y or k, and i ti s the t i m i ng of hi s m os tr ece nt
co n v ict ion s thatgi ve r i s e t o the l egal i s s ue pr es ent ed byhi s pet i t i on. Fo r p u rp o s e s of addre ssing G ar ci a- Padr on’ s cl ai m , w e obs erve thaton O ct ober14, 1992, pet i t i onerw as convi ct ed upon a gui l typl ea of tw o count s of s econd- degr ee att empt ed r obberyi n vi ol at i on
o f N e w Y o rk P e n a l L a w § 1 6 0 .1 0 a n d w a s s e n ten c e d to o n e -to -th re e y e a rs in p riso n . W h ile in c a rc e ra ted , G a rc ia- P a d ro n w a s s e rv e d w ith a n O rd e r to S h o w C a u s e c h a rg in g h im w ith depor t abi l i tyunderform ers ect i on 241( a) ( 2) ( A ) ( i i ) of the I N A forhavi ng been c onvi ct ed of
m ul t i pl e cr i m es of m or al turpi tude notar i s i ng outof a sing le cour s e of c onduct
. G ar ci aPadr on w as par ol ed on A ugus t24, 1993, and r el eas ed into the cus t odyof the I m m i gr at i on and N atur al i zat i on Ser vi ce (“IN S ”), f r om w hi ch he w as r el eas ed af t erpos t i ng an $8, 000 b o n d
.4

G ar ci a- Padr on ther eaf

t ervi ol at ed hi s s t at e par ol e by s tr i ki ng and gr abbi ng the dr i ver of an a m bul ance , w hi ch ca us ed the ambul ance t o cr as h i nt o a parked ca r , ej ect i ng the dr i ver fr om the ambul ance . Fol l ow i ng thi s par ol e vi ol at i on, G ar ci a- Padr on w as r eturned t o pr i s on t o s e r v e th e r e ma i n d e ro f h i s th r e e - y e a r s e n t e n c e f o ra t t e mp t e d r o b b e ry . M e a n wh i l e , th e I NS
re q u e ste d th a t G a rc ia- P a d ro n ’s d e p o rta tio n p ro c e e d in g s b e a d m i nis trat i vely cl osed d uri ng h is in c a rc e ra tio n , a n d o n F e b ru a ry 2 2 , 1 9 9 4 , th e IJ g ra n te d th e u n o p p o s e d re q u e s t. O n M ar ch 3, 199 4 , G ar ci a- Padr on pl eade d gui l tyt o r eckl es s endange r m enti n t he
s e c o n d d e g r e e i n v i o l a t i o n o f Ne w Yo r k P e n a l L a w § 1 2 0
. 2 0 a n d wa s s e n t e n c e d t o t i me
s erved. H e w as s ubs equent l y r el eas ed fr om pr i s on on Sept ember7, 1995, havi ng compl et ed th e re m a in d e r o f

th e th re e -ye a r s e n te n c e o n h is 1 9 9 2 a tte m p te d ro b b e ry c o n v ic tio n s . Ga r c i a - P a d r o n ’ s a b s e n c e f r o m th e Ne w Yo r k s t a t e p e n a l s y s t e m w a s s h o r t - l i v e d
. On D ece m ber 15, 1998, he w as convi ct ed fol l ow i ng a benc h tr i al of pet i tl ar cenyi n vi ol at i on of N ew Y or k Penal L aw § 155. 25 and thi r d- degr ee menaci ng i n vi ol at i on of N ew Y or k Penal L aw § 120. 15. H e w as s ent ence d t o t i m e s erved and thr ee y ear s ’ pr obat i on. A ppr oxi m at el ythr ee y ear s l at er , on D ece m ber19, 2 0 0 1 , the I N S r eopene d G ar ci aPadr on’ s deport at i on pr ocee di ng and, on A ugus t 7, 2002, the age ncyamended the cha r ges of deport abi l i tyt o i ncl ude G ar ci a- Padr on’ s 1998 convi ct i on forpet i tl ar ceny . G ar ci a- Padr on appea r ed befor e t he IJ on J anuary 29, 2003, and concede d deport abi l i tyunderI N A s ect i on 237( a) ( 2) ( A ) ( i i ) i n l i ghtof hi s convi ct i ons for“tw o orm or e cr i m es i nvol vi ng m o r alFor m ers ect i on 241( a) ( 2) ( A ) ( i i ) of the I N A w as tr ans ferr ed t o I N A s ect i on 2 237( a) ( 2) ( A ) ( i i ) byPub. L
. N o. 104- 208, § 305( a) ( 2) , 110 St at . 3009- 546, 3009- 598 (1 9 9 6 ), an d f

ro m 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 1 (a )(2 )(A )(ii) to § 1 2 2 7 (a )(2 )(A )(ii), w h e re it i s c u rre n tly loca ted. O u r rem ainin g cit ati o n s to this sec ti o n o f th e IN A w il l be to it s p rese n t st atuto ry i ncarnat i on. B oth of G ar ci a- Padr on’ s pr edi cat e ac t s w er e C l as s D fel oni es i n N ew Y or k, 3 i ndi vi dual l ys ubj ectt o a s ent ence of up t o s even y ear s . See N
. Y
. Penal L aw 5 tu rp itu d e , n o t a ri s in g o u t o f a s in g le s c h e m e o f

c ri m in a l m is c o n d u c t,” 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 7 (a )(2 )(A )(ii), sp e c if ica lly , h is 1 9 9 2 a ttem p te d ro b b e ryc o n v ictio n s a n d h is 1 9 9 8 p e tit 2 l ar cenyconvi ct i on. H e appl i ed for a w ai ver of i nadmi s s i bi l i ty underform ers ect i on 212( c) of the I N A , w hi ch the I J deni ed on the gr ound thatpet i t i oner ’ s 1998 pet i tl ar cenyconvi ct i on
r ender ed hi m i nel i gi bl e for s uch re l i ef. T he B I A di s m i s s ed t he appe al , concl udi ng thatthe
re p e a l o f se c tio n 2 1 2 (c ) o f

th e A c t p rio r to G a rc ia- P a d ro n ’s 1 9 9 8 c o n v ictio n p re c lu d e d h im fr om s uch r el i ef w i th r es pectt o t hatconvi ct i on. See I n r e G ar ci a- Padr on, N o. A 30 868 457 ( B
. I
. A
. M ar . 20, 2008)
. T hi s pet i t i on fol l ow ed. I I I . D i s cus s i on A
. J ur i s di ct i on G a rc ia- P a d ro n c o n c e d e s th a t h e is d e p o rta b le u n d e r 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 7 (a )(2 )(A )(ii) beca us e hi s tw o 1992 convi ct i ons foratt empt ed r obberyqual i fyas “tw o orm or e cr i m es i nv olvi ng m oral turpi tud e. ” W e l ack j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew a fi nal order o f rem ov al against an al i en w ho, l i ke G ar ci a- Padr on, i s r emo v ab l e under§ 1227( a) ( 2) ( A ) ( i i ) , w her e, as her e, b o t h p r e d i c a t e o f

f e n s e s a r e s u b

j e c tt o a s e n t e n c e o f

o n e y e a ro rmo r e . S e e 8 U. S
. C. 3§§ 70. 00( 2) ( d) , 110. 05( 5) , 160. 10. 6

§ 1 2 5 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( C)
. We ma y , h o we v e r , r e v i e w “ c o n s t i tu t i o n a l c l a i ms o r q u e s t i o n s o f l a w”
r ai s ed bya pet i t i oneri n s uch ci r cumst ance s . See i d. § 1252( a) ( 2) ( D ) ; A l i v. M ukas ey , 529 F .3 d 4 7 8 , 4 8 8 -8 9 (2 d C ir. 2 0 0 8 ). B e c a u se G a r c ia- P a d ro n ’s p e tit io n c a lls u p o n u s to d eterm ine his statu tory eli g ibil ity fo r d iscreti o n ary reli ef u n d er fo rm er IN A sec ti o n 2 1 2 (c),
w e pr ocee d t o addr es s thatcl ai m . See C hannerv. D ep’ tof H om el and Sec. , 527 F. 3d 275, 279 ( 2d C i r . 2008) ( not i ng that s cope of r evi ew under § 1252( a) ( 2) ( D ) i nclud es p eti ti ons

“ b a s e d o n e rr o rs o f

la w , in c lu d in g th e e rr o n e o u s a p p lic a tio n o r i n te rp re ta tio n o f s ta tu te s . . . and det erm i nat i ons r egar di ng an al i en’ s s t atut ory el i gi bi l i tyfordi s cr et i onaryr el i ef” ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks and emphas i s om i t t ed) ) ; Phong T hanh N guy en v. C hert off, 501 F. 3d 107, 1 1 1 (2d C ir
. 2 0 0 7 ) (“T h e p h rase ‘qu esti o n s o f law ’ en c o m p a s s e s , inter ali a, . . . an ali en ’s
s ta tu to ry e lig ib ility f

o r r e m o v a l a n d re lie f

f ro m re m o v a l.” (i n te rn a l c ita tio n s o m itte d ))
. B
. St andar d of R evi ew “W hen the B I A i s s ues an opi ni on, ‘ the opi ni on becomes the bas i s forj udi ci al r evi ew of the decision o f w h ic h the al i en i s compl ai ni ng. ’ ” Y an C hen v. G onzal es , 417 F. 3d 268, 271 ( 2d C i r . 2005) ( quot i ng N i am v. A s hcr oft , 354 F. 3d 652, 655 ( 7th C i r . 2004) )
. W her e,
as her e, the B I A does notadoptthe dec i s i on of the I J t o any ext ent , w e r evi ew the dec i s i on
o f th e B IA . S e e id
.

“ W e re v ie w u n d e rl y in g q u e s tio n s o f la w a n d th e a p p lic a tio n o f la w to f a c t d e n o v o .”7

R om an v. M ukas ey , 553 F. 3d 184, 186 ( 2d C i r . 2009)
. “[W ] hen ourj ur i s di ct i on depends on the def i ni t i on of a phr as e us ed i n the I N A , a s t atut e that the B I A admi ni s t er s , and w hen the i nt entof C ongr es s i s uncl ear and the age ncy ’ s i nt erpr et at i on i s r eas onabl e, ” w e def ert o t he B IA in a c c o rd a n c e w ith C h e v ro n U .S .A ., In c . v . N a tu ra l R e s o u rc e s D e f e n s e C o u n c il, I n c ., 467 U
. S. 837, 842- 43 ( 1984)
. J ames v. M ukas ey , 522 F. 3 d 2 50, 253- 54 ( 2d C i r . 2008) (in ter n a l q u o tatio n m a rk s o m itt e d ). H o w e v e r, “n o su c h d e f e re n c e is w a rra n ted w h e re , as in thi s cas e, the cha l l enged BIA d ec isi on i s unpubl i s hed, and, i n anyevent , the t extof the statu te i s clea r. ” P h o n g T h an h N g u y en v . C h ertof f, 50 1 F
. 3 d at 11 1 (cit ati o n s o m itted). C
. G ar ci a- Padr on’ s E l i gi bi l i tyforSect i on 212( c) R el i ef T h e q u e stio n o f

law p re se n ted b y th is a p p e a l is w h e th e r G a rc ia- P a d ro n w a s s tatu to rily
e lig ib le f o r w a iv e r o f

in a d m iss ib ili tyu n d e r f o rm e r se c tio n 2 1 2 (c ), d e sp ite th e f a c t th a t th is
s t atut orys ect i on w as r epea l ed by I I R I R A i n 1996, w el l befor e pet i t i oner ’ s 1998 convi ct i on f o r p e ti t la r c e n y . W e h o ld th a t G a rc ia- P a d ro n w a s e lig ib le a n d th a t th e B IA e rre d in
c o n c lu d in g o th e rw is e .

1. R epea l of Sect i on 212( c) U nderform er212( c) , “l egal perm anentr es i dent s w ho w er e s ubj ectt o deport at i on, but
w ho had r es i ded i n t he U ni t ed S t at es fors even c ons ecut i ve y ear s , w er e el i gi bl e t o appl yfor a d iscreti o n aryw aive r of d ep o rt ati o n . ” M arti n ez v . IN S , 5 2 3 F
. 3 d 3 6 5 , 3 6 8 (2d C ir
. 2 0 0 8 ). A s w e have expl ai ned, “[t ] he dec i s i on of w hethert o aw ar d sec t i on 212( c) r el i ef i nvol vedG arc ia-P ad ron also so u g h t secti o n 2 4 0 A ca n ce ll ati o n o f re m o v al be fo re the IJ 4 and the B I A
. B oth t he I J and B I A di s m i s s ed G ar ci a- Padr on’ s pet i t i on fors ect i on 240A re lie f o n th e g ro u n d th a t h e is s ta tu to ri ly b a rr e d f ro m s u c h re lie f

a s a n a g g ra v a te d f

e lo n . G ar ci a- Padr on does notchal l enge thi s as pectof the B I A ’ s deci s i on, and w e ther efor e do n o t a d d re s s it. 8 onl y a bal anci ng of t he ‘a dver s e fact or s evi denci ng an al i en’ s undes i r abi l i ty as a perm anent
r es i dentw i th the s oci al and humane co n side r at i ons pr es ent ed i n hi s behal f t o det erm i ne
w h e th e r th e g ra n tin g o f [ a se c tio n 2 1 2 (c ) w a iv e r] a p p e a r[ e d ] in th e b e st in ter e sts o f th is country . ’ ” K ai T ung C han v. G antner , 464 F. 3d 289, 295 ( 2d C i r . 2006) ( s econd a l t er at i on in o rig in a l) ( quot i ng I n r e M ar i n, 16 I
. & N
. D ec. 581, 584 ( B
. I
. A
. 1978) ) ; acc or d M ar t i nez
v . IN S , 5 2 3 F .3 d a t 3 6 8
. I n 1996, s ect i on 212( c) r el i ef w as fi r s t r es tr i ct ed and then el i m i nat ed. Sect i on 440( d) of the A nt i t err or i s m and Effec t i ve D eath Penal tyA ctof 1996 ( “A E D PA ”) , Pub. L
. N o. 104- 132, § 440( d) , 110 St at . 1214, 1277, w hi ch t o o k ef fe ct on A pr i l 24, 1996, el i m i nat ed el i gi bi l i tyfors ect i on 212( c) r el i ef f oral i ens convi ct ed of s peci fi ed cr i m es . See D om ond v. I N S, 244 F. 3d 81, 84 ( 2d C i r . 2001)
. Shor t l yther eaf t er , I I R I R A , enac t ed on Sept ember30, 1 9 9 6 , a nd e f

f e c t i v e o n Ap r i l 1 , 1 9 9 7 , r e p e a l e d s e c t i o n 2 1 2 ( c ) a l t o g e th e r . S e e I I RI RA § 3 0 4 (b ), 1 1 0 S tat . at 30 0 9 -59 7
. IIR IR A rep lace d sec ti o n 2 1 2 (c) reli ef w ith the m o re
re stric tiv e p ro c e d u re f

o r c a n c e llatio n o f

re m o v a l u n d e r IN A se c tio n 2 4 0 A , co d if ied a t 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 9 b (a ). S e e B la k e v . C a rb o n e , 4 8 9 F .3 d 8 8 , 9 6 & n .6 (2 d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). 4T he B I A ’ s di s m i s s al of G ar ci a- Padr on’ s appea l appea r s t o r es ts ol el yon 5 I I R I R A ’ s r epea l of s ect i on 212( c)
. A E D PA ’ s s ect i on 440( d) amendm ent s t o I N A s ect i on 212( c) r el i ef do notaff

ectG ar ci a- Padr on beca us e, byr egul at i on, s ect i on 440( d) of A E D PA “s hal l notappl yt o anyappl i cantforr el i ef unde rthi s s ect i on w hos e deport at i on pr ocee di ngs w er e comm ence d befor e the I m m i gr at i on C our tbefor e A pr i l 24, 1996. ” 8 C
. F. R
. § 1212. 3( g)
. I n pr om ul gat i ng § 1212. 3( h) , the A t t orneyG ener al s peci fi cal l ynot ed that§ 1212. 3( g) w oul d “cont i nue[] t o be r el evantt o al i ens w hos e deport at i on pr ocee di ngs w er e comm ence d pr i ort o t he ena ctm entof A E D PA
. T he D epart m entw i l l ther efor e l eave intact th e e x ist ing p rov isi o n o f 8 C
. F
. R
. [§ ] 12 1 2
. 3 (g), w h ich w il l con ti n u e to g o v ern c a se s f a lli n g w ith in its p a ra m e ter s.” S e c tio n 2 1 2 (c ) R e lief f o r A lien s w ith C e rta in C ri m inal C o n v ict ion s B ef o re A p ri l 1, 19 9 7 , 6 9 F ed
. R eg . 5 7 , 8 2 6 , 5 7 , 8 3 2 (S ep t. 2 8 , 2 0 0 4 ).

9 2. I I R I R A Sect i on 309( c) and I N A Sect i on 212( c) R el i ef T h e IJ a n d B IA c o n c lu d e d th a t, be c a u se G a rc ia- P a d ro n ’s 1 9 9 8 c o n v ictio n f o r p e tit l ar cenyoccurr ed af

t erthe ef fec t i ve dat e of I I R I R A , he w as nece s s ar i l yi nel i gi bl e forr el i ef p u r s u a n t t o r e p e a l e d s e c t i o n 2 1 2 ( c )
. S e e I n r e Ga r c i a - P a d r o n , No
. A3 0 8 6 8 4 5 7 , a t2 ( B. I
. A. 5 M ar . 20, 2008)
. Speci fi cal l y , the B I A rul ed t hat “[t ] he factthat[G ar ci a- Padr on] w as al r eady i n deport at i on pr ocee di ngs atthe t i m e of hi s 1998 convi ct i on i s i rr el evan t . . . . [T]he
r es pondenti s not el i gi bl e for s ect i on 212( c) r el i ef w i th r es pect t o the r emovabi l i tys t emm i ng f ro m h is 1 9 9 8 c o n v ic tio n .” Id . W e d is a g re e . F o r ali en s w h o w ere “in e x clus ion o r de p o rta tio n p roc ee d ing s as o f th e ti tl e III-A
e f f e c tiv e d a te” o f

A p ril 1 , 1 9 9 7 , the sa v in g s p ro v isio n in IIR IR A se c tio n 3 0 9 (c )(1 ) c lea rly
s t at es that“the amendm ent s m ade bythi s s ubt i t l e” – i ncl udi ng the r epea l of s ect i on 212( c) – “s hal l not appl y , and
. . . the pr ocee di ngs ( i ncl udi ng j udi ci al r evi ew ther eof) s hal l cont i nueO n O ct ob er 11, 19 96 , l ess than tw o w eeks afterII R IR A w as passed, C on gress 6 amended t he l anguage of I I R I R A s ect i on 309( c) ( 1) , s tr i ki ng “as of” a nd i ns ert i ng “bef or e, ” t o m ake s ect i on 309( c) ( 1) appl i cabl e “i n the ca s e of a n al i en w ho i s i n excl us i on ordeport at i on pr ocee di ngs befor e the t i t l e I I I
- A eff ect i ve dat e. ” See Pub. L
. N o. 1 0 4 -30 2 , § 2 , 1 1 0 S tat . 3 6 5 6 , 3 6 5 7 (19 9 6 ). T h is ch an g e is n o t m aterial to p eti ti o n er’s cas e. 10 to b e c o n d u c ted w ith o u t re g a rd to su c h a m e n d m e n ts.” IIR IR A § 3 0 9 (c )(1 ). C o n stru in g th is 6 l a n g u a g e i n Ta b l i e v. G on z a l e s , 4 7 1 F
. 3 d 6 0 ( 2 d Ci r . 2 0 0 6 ) , th i s c o u r tn o t e d th a tI I RI RA pr ovi s i ons gener al l y “do not appl y i n the cas e of a n al i en w ho i s i n excl us i on ordeport at i on pr ocee di ngs as of the [s t atut e’ s ] eff ect i ve dat e. ” I d. at 62 ( al t er at i on i n or i g inal) (i nt ernal q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ). G arci a-Padron ’s dep ort at i on proceed i ng s began i n 1 99 3 an d, al tho ug h these p ro c e e d in g s w e re su sp e n d e d w h ile h e w a s in c a rc e ra ted , h e n e v e rth e les s re m a in e d “ in d e p o rta tio n p ro c e e d in g s” th ro u g h th e tim e IIR IR A to o k e f f e c t. A s th e B IA itse lf

sta ted in I n r e Lopez- B arr i os , 20 I
. & N
. D ec. 203 ( B
. I
. A
. 1990) , “admi ni s tr at i ve cl os i ng i s m er el yan ad m inistrati v e c o n v en ienc e. Itall o w s the rem o v al of ca ses f rom the im m igrati o n jud g e’s cal endar i n cert ai n ci r cumst ance s . H ow ever , i tdoes notr es ul ti n a fi nal or der
. ” I d. at204;
s ee a l s o A r ca- Pi neda v. A t t orneyG en. o f the U
. S
. , 527 F. 3d 101, 104- 05 ( 3d C i r . 2008) ( not i ng thatadmi ni s tr at i ve cl os ur e does not r es t art pet i t i oner ’ s “phy s i cal pr es ence cl ock” f or pu rposes of suspen si on of d epo rt at i on un der form e r 8 U .S .C
. § 1 25 4(a) (1) becau se “admi ni s tr at i ve cl os ur e i s a pr ocedur al conveni ence that m ay be gr ant ed i f both part i es t o t he
r emoval pr ocee di ngs agr ee, but i tdoes notcons t i tut e a f i nal or der ” ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arksW e e x p re ss n o o p in io n a s to w h e th e r a b a lan c in g o f th e re lev a n t f

a c to rs w o u ld 7 w arr anta gr antof s uch r el i ef, a dec i s i on comm i t t ed t o the di s cr et i on of the age ncy . See D e L a R o sa v . U
. S
. D ep ’to f H o m elan d S ec . , 4 8 9 F
. 3 d 5 5 1 , 5 5 2 -53 (2d C ir
. 2 0 0 7 ). 11 and al t er at i on om i t t ed) ) ; N obl e v. K ei s l er , 505 F. 3d 73, 75- 76 ( 2d C i r . 2007) ( no ti n g that p e t i t i o n e r ’ s d e p o r t a t i o n p r o c e e d i n g s b e g a n i n 1 9 9 3 , wer e a d mi n i s tr a t i v e l y c l o s e d whi l e he
w a s in c a rc e ra ted , an d w e re re o p e n e d a g a in in 2 0 0 2 , af ter w h ich p e tit io n e r re m a in e d e lig ib le fors ect i on 212( c) r el i ef, w hi ch w oul d nothave be en avai l abl e i f the pr ocee di ng had notbeen
cons i der ed ongoi ng) ; L opez- R ey es v. G onzal es , 496 F. 3d 20, 21 ( 1s tC i r . 2007) ( not i ng t hat admi ni s tr at i ve cl os ur e i s a “pr ocedur al conveni ence ” t hat“t empora r i l yr emoves a cas e fr om
a n im m ig ra tio n ju d g e ’s c a len d a r o r f ro m th e B o a rd ’s d o c k e t” w ith th e c o n se n t o f b o th p arti es). Pre ciselyb ec au se G arc ia-P ad ron ’s de p o rt ati o n p roc ee d ing co m m en ce d b ef o re I I R I R A ’ s r epea l of s ect i on 212( c) , w e conc l ude thatpet i t i oneri s ent i t l ed t o s eek r el i ef unde r thats ect i on. 7 I n as s es s i ng the eff

ect of I I R I R A on pet i t i oner ’ s cl ai m , the B I A m i s t akenl yfocus ed on the dat e of pet i t i oner ’ s 1998 cr i m i nal convi ct i on for pet i t l ar ceny , r ather than the dat e on
w h i ch pet i t i oner ’ s deport at i on pr ocee di ng began. T he B I A concl uded that , al though pet i t i oner“r emai ns el i gi bl e fors ect i on 212( c) r el i ef w i th r es pectt o hi s 1992 convi ct i ons , t he repeal of s ect i on 212( c) of the A ctpr i ort o hi s 1998 convi ct i on pr ecl udes hi m fr om s uch reli ef w ith resp ec t to th at co n v ict ion
. ” In re G arc ia-P ad ron , A 3 0 8 6 8 4 5 7 , at 2 (B
. I. A
. M ar. 20, 2008)
. O n i t s fac e, how ever , the pl ai n l anguage of I I R I R A s ect i on 309( c) ( 1) i s conce r ned12

o n lyw ith th e d a te o n w h ich a p e tit io n e r’s d e p o rta tio n p ro c e e d in g w a s in iti a ted . T h e sta tu te i ns truct s thati f thatdat e i s befor e A pr i l 1, 1 9 9 7 , the amendm entr epea l i ng s ect i on 212( c) “s hal l notappl y . ” I I R I R A § 309( c)
. W e ar e compel l ed t o i dent i fyerr ori n the B I A ’ s focus
o n the d ate o f p eti ti o n er’s p o st- IIR IR A c o n v iction an d in it s fa il u re to f o ll o w C o n g ress’s in s tru c tio n to a p p ly p re -I IR IR A la w to c la im s lik e G a rc ia -P a d ro n ’s
. T he r egul at orypr ovi s i on at8 C
. F. R
. § 1212. 3( h) , w hi ch pr ovi des that“[a ] l i ens ar e not el i gi bl e t o appl yfors ect i on 212( c) r el i ef unde rthe pr ovi s i ons of thi s par agr aph w i th r es pect t o convi ct i ons ent er ed af t er tr i al , ” i s not t o the cont r ary . Sect i on 1212. 3( h) w enti nt o eff ect
o n O c t ob er 28, 20 04 , and w as prom ulgat ed to i m plem ent the S up rem e C ou rt ’s decis i on in IN S v. S t . C yr, 53 3 U
. S
. 28 9 (200 1). S ee S ect i on 21 2(c) R el i ef fo r A l i ens w i th C ert a in C r i m i nal C onvi ct i ons B efor e A pr i l 1 , 1 9 9 7 ( “212( c) R el i ef f orA l i ens ”) , 69 Fed. R eg. 57, 826, 5 7 ,8 2 6 (S e p t. 2 8 , 2 0 0 4 ). A s is c le a r f ro m th e title o f

th e ru le a n d th e d e c is io n in S t. C yr, § 1 2 1 2 .3 (h ) a d d re ss e s th e re tro a c tiv ityp ro b lem c re a ted w h e n a p e tit io n e r h a s p lea d e d g u ilty t o a cr i m e pr i or t o I I R I R A ’ s eff ect i ve dat e of A pr i l 1, 1997, and has deport at i on pr ocee di ngs insti tut ed aga i ns thi m aft erthatdat e. See I N S v. St
. C yr , 533 U
. S. at293 ( des cr i bi ng pet i t i onerw ho pl eade d gui l ty t o s el l i ng contr ol l ed s ubs t ance befor e 1996 amendm ent s and wh o s e r e mo v a l p r o c e e d i n g s we r e c o mme n c e d a f t e r b o th AEDP A a n d I I RI RA b e c a me eff ect i ve)
. St
. C yrw as conce r ned onl yw i th the r el i ance i nt er es tof al i ens w ho had pl eade d g u iltyu n d e r th e p re -A E D P A /IIR IR A re g im e . S e e id . at 3 2 3 (“ G iv e n th e f re q u e n c yw ith13

wh i c h [ s e c t i o n ] 2 1 2 ( c ) r e l i e f wa s g r a n t e d i n th e y e a r s l e a d i n g u p t o AE DP A a n d I I RI RA , pr es ervi ng the pos s i bi l i tyof such r el i ef w oul d have been one of t he pri nci pal benef i t s s ought b yd e f e n d a n ts d e c id in g w h e th e r to a c c e p t a p lea o f f e r o r in ste a d to p ro c e e d to trial.” (f o o tn o te
om i t t ed) )
. C ons equent l y , § 1212. 3( h) m er el ycodi fi es the cor ol l aryrul e thatan al i en w ho chos e not t o pl ead, but i ns t ead el ect ed t o go t o tr i al underthe pr e- A E D PA / I I R I R A r egi m e,
w as notent i t l ed t o as s ertthe r el i ance i nt er es ti dent i fi ed i n St
. C yr . Se e, e . g . , R anki ne v. R eno , 31 9 F. 3d 93 , 10 0 ( 2d C i r. 20 03 ) (r easoning that, un l i ke the pet i t i on er i n St
. C yr, “t ho se al i ens w ho w entt o tr i al pr i ort o the el i m i nat i on of [s ect i on] 212( c) r el i ef c annots how t hat th ey al t er ed thei rconducti n r el i ance on the ava i l abi l i tyof s uch r el i ef, ” and hol di ng
acc or di ng l y th a t “ I I RI RA ’ s r e p e a l o f [ s e c t i o n ] 2 1 2 ( c ) i s n o t i mpe r mi s s i b l y r e tr o a c t i v e as
a p p lied to th e m ” ); se e a lso 2 1 2 (c ) R e lief f o r A lien s, 6 9 F e d . R e g . at 5 7 ,8 2 8 (n o tin g th a t, i n l i ghtof dec i s i ons i ncl udi ng R anki ne v. R eno, 319 F. 3d 93, “the D epart m enthas det erm i ned t o r et ai n the di s t i nct i on [i n § 1212. 3( h) ] betw een i nel i gi bl e al i ens w ho w er e convi ct ed af t er
cr i m i nal tr i al s , and thos e convi ct ed thr ough pl ea agr eement s ”)
. G ar ci a- Padr on’s si tua t i on i s the r ever s e of thatpr es enti n St
. C yr : hi s deport at i on pr oceedin g b eg an underthe pr eA E D P A /IIR IR A re g im e , an d h is s u b se q u e n t c o n v ictio n o c c u rre d u n d e r th e p o stA E D P A /IIR IR A re g im e . B e c a u se § 1 2 1 2 .3 (h ) w a s p ro m u lg a ted to d e a l w ith a re tro a c tiv ity pr obl em not pr es enti n thi s cas e, the r egul ati o n cannots uper s ede the pl ai n l anguage of I I R I R A s ect i on 309( c) ( 1) , w hi ch pr es erves s ect i on 212( c) r el i ef for pet i t i oner s , l i ke G ar ci a-14

P a d ro n , w h o s e d e p o rt a tio n p ro c e e d in g s b e g a n u n d e r t h e p re -I IR IR A re g im e . T he g ov ernm ent’ s r el i ance o n D om on d v
. IN S , 2 4 4 F
. 3d 81 (2d C i r. 20 01 ), i s al so
m i s pl ace d. I n D om ond, w e cons idere d an d r ej ect ed the ar gum entthatA E D PA w as im p erm issi b lyretroac tiv e a s ap p li ed to crim inal co n d u ct co m m itted b ef o re A E D P A ’s
enac t m ent , w her e both t he convi ct i on forthatcr i m e and the comm ence m entof the d e p o rta tio n p ro c e e d in g o c c u rre d a f ter A E D P A ’ s e f

f e c tiv e d a te. S e e id . at 8 6 (“ [ I]t w o u ld bor deron t he abs ur d t o ar gue thatD om ond w oul d have de ci ded nott o comm i t a cr i m e i f he had know n thathe notonl ycoul d be i m pr i s oned, but al s o coul d fac e deport at i on w i thoutt he
av ail ab il ityo f a d iscreti o n aryw aive r of d ep o rt ati o n . ” (intern al qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted)),
rev ’g 64 F. Supp. 2d 47, 49 ( D
. C onn. 1999) ( not i ng thatcr i m i nal conductoccurr ed on N ovember18, 1994, pet i t i onerw as convi ct ed on N ovember8, 1996 , an d O rde rt o Show C au se w as issu ed o n D ec em b er 3 0 , 1 9 9 6 , an d serv ed o n D o m o n d o n F eb rua ry2 4 , 1 9 9 7 ). D om ond, how ever , i s di s t i ngui s habl e becaus e i t di d not i nvol ve I I R I R A s ect i on 309( c) ( 1) or dep ort at i on proceed i ng s com m enced pri or t o A E D P A and II R IR A ’s effecti ve d at es. Th e g o v e rn me n th a s n o tp r o v i d e d a n ys u p p o r tf o ri t s c o n t e n t i o n th a t8 C. F
. R. § 1212. 3( h) bar s G ar ci a- Padr on fr om s eeki ng s ect i on 212( c) r el i ef. N orhas the governm ent ad d resse d the co n tr ary u n p u b li sh ed d ec isi o n B eltran v . M u k ase y , 2 8 6 F
. A p p ’x 9 1 4 (6th C ir
. 2 0 0 8 ), in w h ich th e S ix th C irc u it a p p lied th e p lain lan g u a g e o f IIR IR A se c tio n 3 0 9 (c )(1 ) to a fa ctual s i tuat i on s i m i l art o G ar ci a- Padr on’ s . B el tr an w as s erved w i th an O rdert o Show15

C a u s e in A u g u s t 1 9 9 4 , c h a rg in g h im w ith d e p o rt a b ility u n d e r f o rm e r 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 1 (a)(2)(A )(i i)
. S ee id. at9 1 5
. In 2 0 0 0 , w h il e B eltran ’s de p o rt a tio n p ro c ee d ing s w ere
o n g o ing , h e w as c o n v ict ed o f f o u rth -de g ree crim inal sex u al co n d u ct. Id. W h il e h is th ir d pet i t i on t o the Si xth C i r cui tw as pendi ng, the D epart m entof H om el and Secur i tym oved for
r e ma n d t o a l l o w t h e BI A “ t o c l a r i fy i n th e f i r s ti n s t a n c e th e a p p l i c a b i l i tyo f
. . . 8 C. F
. R. §§ 1212. 3( g) and 1213. 3( h) ( 3) i n the cas e of an al i en w hos e pr ocee di ngs comm ence d pr i or t o 1996, but w ho s uffe r ed an addi t i onal cr i m i nal convi ct i on aft er A pr i l 1, 1997. ” I d. at917 (cit ati o n and i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed)
. T he ca s e r eturned t o the Si xth C i r cui t , at
w hi ch t i m e t he courtr ever s ed the B I A ’ s pr i m arygr ound forfi ndi ng B el tr an i nel i gi bl e for
s e c t i on 21 2( c ) r e l i e f

, s e e i d
. a t9 1 8
- 1 9 , b u ta d o p t e d th e BI A’ s a n a l y s i s a s t o I I RI RA
s ect i on 309( c) and quot ed i tatle ngth, s ee i d. at919- 20. T he Si xth C i r cui tconcl uded that B el tr an “i s t echni cal l yel i gi bl e t o s eek s ect i on 212( c) r el i ef a s t o hi s p o st- A E D P A and I I R I R A convi ct i ons beca us e s ect i on 309( c) of the I I R I R A s peci fi cal l ym akes the r epea l of th e p re -IIR IR A d e p o rta tio n law s, in c lu d in g re p e a l o f se c tio n 2 1 2 (c ) o f

th e A c t, i n a p p lica b le to tho se a li en s in d ep o rt ati o n p roc ee d ing s. ” Id. (intern al qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). T h e c o u rt al s o not ed that8 C
. F. R
. § 1212. 3( h) “s houl d notbe r ead t o aut om at i cal l ybarr el i ef unde r form ers ect i on 21 2 (c) o f the A ctforan al i en w ho r emai ns i n ol d- l aw [i
. e. , pr eA E D PA / I I R I R A ] deport at i on pr ocee d i ngs beca us e t o do s o w oul d count erm and s ect i on 309( c) of t he I I R I R A [, ] w hi ch s peci fi cal l ypr es erved r el i ef unde rform ers ect i on 212( c) of16

th e A c t f o r a lie n s in o ld -l a w d e p o rt a tio n p ro c e e d in g s s u c h a s th e r e s p o n d e n t in th is c a s e .” Id . a t 9 2 0 (i n te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ). W e n o t e t ha t t he BI A, i n s e v e r a l u n p u b l i s h e d d e c i s i o n s , h a s i t s e l f t a k e n th e s a me p o s i t i o n a s th e S i x th Ci r c u i t . I n I n r e P a l me r , No
. A3 7 4 5 6 3 0 7 , 2 0 0 4 WL 2 3 7 4 9 5 3 ( B. I
. A. A ug. 24, 2004) , t he B oar d r el i ed upon I I R I R A s ect i on 309( c) ( 1) t o concl ude that , “[s ] i nce t he r e s p o n d e n t r e ma i n s i n d e p o r t a t i o n p r o c e e d i n g s [ c o mme n c e d p r i o r t o I I RI RA ] , h e ca n
s eek f or m s of r el i ef a vai l abl e i n s uch pr ocee di ngs even a s t o cr i m es comm i t t ed s ubs equent t o the change s m ade by I I R I R A
. ” Si m i l ar l y , i n I n r e J uncaj , N o. A 90 316 467, 2005 W L 1104260 ( B
. I
. A
. A pr . 4, 2005) , the B oar d not ed t hat , l i ke G ar ci a- Padr on, the al i en had be en convi ct ed attr i al , butconcl uded thathi s convi ct i on w as no bart o s ect i on 212( c) r el i ef beca us e I I R I R A s ect i on 309( c) r ender ed the r epea l of s ect i on 212( c) i nappl i cabl e t o al i ens
w hos e deport at i on pr ocee di ngs began pr i or t o I I R I R A ’ s eff ect i ve dat e. T he B oar d expl ai ned thatJ uncaj di d “notneed the Supr em e C our t ’ s deci s i on i n I N S v. St
. C yr , 533 U
. S. 289 ( 2001) , orthe r egul at i ons pr om ul gat ed as a r es ul t of St
. C yr , t o pr es erve the ava i l abi l i tyof
s ect i on 212( c) r el i ef i n hi s cas e. Such pr es ervat i on, forthi s r es pondent , w as acc om pl i s hed b ys e c tio n 3 0 9 (c ) o f

th e II R IR A .” Id
. T he governm entm akes no eff or t t o di s t i ngui s h thes e cas es . I t as s ert s onl ythatt hey
ar e not bi ndi ng on thi s court . A l though w e agr ee that no contr ol l i ng pr ece dent appl i es t o our
a ss e ss m e n t o f

th is c a se , w e n e v e rth e les s c o n c lu d e f o r th e re a so n s s tate d a b o v e th a t th e p lain17

lan g u a g e o f

IIR IR A se c tio n 3 0 9 (c ) pr e c lu d e s the c o n c lu sio n th a t G a rc ia- P a d ro n is in e lig ib le to se e k se c tio n 2 1 2 (c ) re lief. W e re itera te th a t w e e x p re ss n o o p in io n a s to w h e th e r th e f a c ts
a n d c ir c u m s ta n c e s w ill w a rr a n t a n a w a rd o f s u c h re lie f

o n re m a n d
. I I I . C onc l us i on To c o n c l u d e , i n I I RI RA s e c t i o n 3 0 9 ( c ) Co n g r e s s e x p l i c i t l ys t a t e d t h a tth e I I RI RA amendm ent s , i ncl udi ng I I R I R A ’ s r epea l of s ect i on 212( c) , do notappl yt o al i ens , l i ke G ar ci aP a d r o n , w h o s e d e p o rt a t i o n p r o c e e d i n g s p r e d a t e th e e f f e c t i v e d a t e o f

I I R I R A
. A c c o r d i n g l y,
w e G R A N T the pet i t i on for r evi ew , V A C A T E the dec i s i on of the B I A , and R E M A N D the
cas e forfur therpr ocee di ngs cons i s t entw i th thi s opi ni on.