2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

5-18-2005 

# Ok ek e v . Atty Ge n U SA

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 03-1831

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j amin
. C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du

. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" Oke ke v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1089. h tt p://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/1089* Attorney Gene ral Albe rto Gonzales has be en substituted for fo rm e r Atto rn e y

Ge ne ral J ohn A sh c ro ft , th e orig inal r e sp on de nt i n this case, pur suant to Fe d. R. App. P. 43(c). P RE CE DE NT I AL

UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

__________ N o. 03- 1831/ 4640

__________ AN DER SON J UD E OK EKE,

P eti ti o n er,

v. A LB ER TO R. G O N ZA LES, * A t t orneyG eneral of the U nit ed S t at es,

R e sp o n d e n t.

__________ O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of O r der s of R emoval f ro m th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls U

. S. D epar t m entof J us t i ce E xecut i ve O ffi ce f

orI m m i gr at i on R evi ew ( B I A N o. A 26- 188- 596)

__________ A r gued: O ct ober28, 2004

___________B efor e: N Y G A A R D , A M B R O , and G A R T H , C i r cui tJ udges ( O pi ni on Fi l ed: M ay18, 2005)

__________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

__________

J o s e p h C. Ho h e n s t e i n , E s q . ( AR GUE D) N at i onal i t i es Ser vi ce Cent er 1300 Spr uce St r eet Phi l adel phi a, PA 19107
A t t or ney f

orP et i t i oner A nders on Jude O keke Jam es E

. G ri m es, E sq . (A R G U E D ) J ohn D

. W i l l i ams, E s q. D ougl as E

. G i ns bur g, E s q. L i nda S. W er ner y , E s q. M ar yJ ane Candaux, E s q. U ni t ed St at es D epar t m entof J us t i ce O ffi ce of I m m i gr at i on L i t i gat i on B en Fr ankl i n St at i on P. O

. B ox 878, C i vi l D i vi s i on W as hi ngt on, D

. C

. 20044
A t t or ney f

orR es pondent A t t or ney G ener alof

t he U ni t ed Stat esG ar t h, C i r cui tJ udge:
A nder s on J ude O keke, a nat i ve and c i t izen of N i ger i a, pet i t i ons forr evi ew of t w o or der s fr om t he B oar d of I m m i gr ati on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”)

. T hos e or der s aff i r m ed t he I m m i gr at i on J ud g e’s ( “I J ”) deci s i on t hatO keke c oul d not d em o n st r at e t he r equi s i t e cont i nuous phy s i cal pr es ence i n t he U n ite d S tate s in o rd e r to q u a lify f o r c a n c e llatio n o f

re m o v a l. E ssen ti all y , the B IA fo u n d that the “ stop -t im e” p rov isi o n (8 U

. S. C

. § 1229b( d) ( 1) ) , once tr i gger ed, pr ecl udes t he ac crual of a n e w p e rio d o f

c o n tin u o u s p re se n c e , w h ich in th is c a se w o u ld pos s i bl ycomm ence w i t h O keke’ s l aw ful r eentr yi nt o t he U ni t ed St at es . T hat l aw ful r eentr y–t he cr i t i cal fac ton appea l –occurr ed aft erOke k e c o mmi t t e d a c o n t r o l l e d s u b s t a n c e o f f e n s e , whi c h, pur s uantt o 8 U

. S. C

. § 1229b (d)(1 ) , cl ear l yended a nypr i or per i od of cont i nuous phy s i cal pr es ence . T he ques t i on pr es ent ed i n t hi s ap peal , t her efor e, i s w het herO keke i s ent i t l ed t o a new p e ri od of co nti nu ou s phy si cal presence, com m encing u po n h is law f u l re e n tryin to th e U n ited S tate s, s o a s to a llo w h im to acc r ue t he t i m e r equi r ed t o es t abl i s h el i gi bi l i t y forcanc el l at i on o f rem o v a l. S ee 8 U

. S. C

. § 1229b. For t he r eas ons s t at ed h e re in , this O p in io n o f th e C o u rt c o n c lu d e s th a t th e c lo c k sh o u ld have r es t ar t ed upon O keke’ s r eentr y . T h e Pet i t i on forR evi ew w i l l t her efor e be gr ant ed.
I . T he fa ct s on appea l ar e r eas onabl ys t r ai ghtfo rw ar d.Th e NT A s tate d a s f oll ow s: 1 The Servic e alleg es that you: 1. Yo u a reno t a c iti zen or natio na l of

theUn ite d St ate s; 2. You ar e a native of Nig eria and a c itiz en of N igeria; 3. You were admitt ed to the United States at New Yor k, NY on or about May 5, 1984 as a nonimmigra nt stude nt to attend T o ur o C o l l e g e i nN e wY o r k , N

. Y

. f o r yo ur d ur at i o no f s t ay; 4. You did not attend Touro Colleg e in New York, N.Y

. a ft e r M ay 19 85 . Y ou

have faile d to m a int a in o r c omp ly wi th the conditions of the n o nimmigra nt status under which you wer e admitted. On the basis of the fore g oing, it is cha rg ed that you are subject to remova l from the United St at es p ursuant to the O keke f i r s tent er ed t he U ni t ed St at es on Se p tem b er15, 1981, pur s uantt o a F- 1 s tudentvi s a i n or der t o at t end Touro Col l ege. I n J anuaryof 1983, aft err etur ni ng to N i ger i a forper s onal r e a s on s , O ke ke a t t e mpt e d t o r e e nt e r t he U ni t e d St a t e s a tJ oh n F. K ennedyA i rpor t , w her eupon he w as ar r es t ed for pos s es s i on of m arij u an a. O k ek e ha s test ifi ed that h e a p p ea red b ef o re a co u rt i n Q u eens, N ew Y or k, w her e he pl ed gui l t yt o pos s es s i on of m a ri ju a n a a n d re c e iv e d a s e n te n c e o f f iv e y e a rs p ro b a tio n . Af t e rt h a ti n c i d e n t , Ok e k e r e t u r n e d t o Ni g e r i a o n t wo f u rth e r o c c a sio n s, o n c e in D e c e m b e r 1 9 8 3 a n d th e n a g a in in A p ril 1 9 8 4 . O n b o th o c c a sio n s, h e w a s la w f u llyre -a d m itt e d to t he U ni t ed St at es underhi s s t udentv isa. Si nce r eturni ng fr om N i ger i a i n M ayof 1984, O keke has l i ved her e w i t hout in te rr u p tio n . O n D ece m ber29, 1 997, t he I m m i gr at i on and N atur al i za ti on Ser vi ce ( “I N S”) fi l ed a N ot i ce t o A ppear (“ N T A ” ), c h a rg in g O k e k e w ith re m o v a b ility u n d e r 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 7 ( a )(1 )(C )(i), in a sm u c h a s h e f a iled to m a in tain o r c o m p ly wi t h t h e t e r ms o f

h i s n o n i mmi g r a n ta d mi s s i o n t o t h e Uni t ed S t at es ( i.e ., he no l ongerat t ended Tour o C ol l ege)

. T hi s w as t he 1followingprovision(s) of law : Se c tio n 23 7( a)( 1) (C )( i) of the [] Immi gratio n a nd Natio na lity Ac t ( Ac t) , a s ame nd e d, in that afte r a dmi ssi on a s a nonimmigra

nt under section 101(a) (15) of the Act, you failed to maintain or comply with th e co n ditions of the nonimmigra

nt status under which you wer e admitted. Okeke and his wife, who tog ether have six children, all of 2 whom areUnited States citizens, self-reported to the I NS t o pursue the ir c anc e llatio n o f re mov a l c la ims . T heI NS i ssu e d th e NT As in responsethere to. Mr s. Okeke (A74-993- 531) re ceive d approval for her c ance llation of removal c laim (wh i ch was sepa rate d from her husband’s claim at the July 27, 1999 hearing) on Dec ember 12, 2002, beca use she de monstr at ed the “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” require d by

the statute. The IJbased this finding on Okeke ’s admissions duringthe 3 he ari ngand

a Natio na l Crimi na l Inf

or matio n Ce nte r ( “NC I C” ) p ri ntout prov ide d b y

theg ov e rnme nt. onl y gr ound of depor t at i on char ged i n t he N T A

. O keke admi t t ed t o t he al l egat i ons i n t he N T A , butfi l ed an a ppl i cat i on f o r c a n c e llatio n o f

re m o v a l. 2
A tt he r emoval hear i ng on J ul y 27, 1999, t he I J concl uded t hatO keke c oul d notdemonst r at e t h e re qui s i t e cont i nuous phy s i cal pr es ence i n t he U ni t ed St at es t o qual i fy forcanc el l at i on of r emoval

. T he I J found s uffi ci entpr oof of t he comm i s s i on of a contr ol l ed s ubs t ance offe ns e, a cr i m e pr ovi di ng for 3 i nadm issi b il i t y . Such an ac tw oul d have tr i gger ed t he “s t opt im e ” p ro v is io n , s ee 8 U. S. C. § 1 2 2 9 b ( d ) ( 1 ) , a n d wou l d have sto p p e d O k e k e ’s a c c ru a l o f c o n tin u o u s p h y sic a l p re se n c e w e ll befor e he c oul d es t abl i s h t he nec es s ar yt en y ear s r equi r ed byt he c a n c e llatio n o f

re m o v a l sta tu te : O k e k e e n ter e d th e c o u n tryin 1981 and comm i t t ed t he cr i m e i n 1983.
O n appea l t o t he B I A , O keke c ont es t ed t he I J ’ s fi ndi ng on t w o gr ounds

. Fi r s t , O keke ar gued t hat t her e w as i ns uffi ci entBe cause this appeal concerns the B IA’s interpretation of the 4 “stop-time” provision, 8 U.S.C . §§ 1229b(b)( 1)(A) , 1229 b (d )(1), a purely leg al deter

mination, the prohibition a g ainst appell at e review of discret i o n ary

deter minations is notapplicable

. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a) (2)( B) (“no c o urt s h al l have jurisdiction to review . . . any other de cision or ac tion of the Attorney Gene ral th e authority

for wh ic h is sp e c if

ie d und e r t

his su bc ha pte r [8 U. S.C. §§ 11 51 -1 37 8] to be in the discr eti on of the Attorne y Gene ral” ) (e mphasis added) ; Naj jar v . A sh c ro ft , 257 F.3d 1262, 12 9 8 (11th Cir. 2001) (holding that “continuous phy sical pre sence ” ele ment is not a discretionar y fa c tor); se e als o M

e nd e z- Mo ra nc he l v . A sh c ro

ft , 338 F.3d 176, 178 pr oof of c on v i ct i on, pr ecl udi ng t he appl i cat i on of t he “s t opt i m e” pr ovi s i on. T he B I A r ej ect ed t hi s cont ent i on, fi ndi ng t hat bot h t he admi s s i ons and t he N C I C r epor t w er e pr obati v e of O keke’ s comm i s s i on of a cont r ol l ed subs t ance offe ns e. Second, O keke c hal l enged the I J ’ s deci s i on t hat he fai l ed t o es t abl i s h t he r equi s i t e t en y ear s conti n u o u s phy s i cal pr es ence t o qual i fyfor c a n c e lla tio n o f

re m o v a l.
R ej ect i ng t hi s cont ent i on as w el l , t he B I A concl uded t hat th e c o m m iss io n o f

a c o n tro lled su b sta n c e o f f e n se is n o t sim p ly i nt er r upt i ve of the per i od of cont i nuous phy s i cal pr es ence , but i s a ter m i nat i ng event , aft erw hi ch no fur t hercont i nuous p re se n c e c a n a c c ru e f

o r p u rp o se s o f

c a n c e llatio n o f

re m o v a l. T h e B IA th u s a f

f irm e d th e IJ’ s d e c is io n , o rd e rin g O k e k e to v o lu n ta ri ly d e p a rt f

ro m th e U n ite d S ta te s . T her eaf t er , O keke f

i l ed a moti o n forr econs i der at i on, w h ich w as d en ied b y the B IA o n N o v em b er 2 8 , 2 0 0 3 , fo r fa il u re t o as s er tnew l egal ar gum ent s . O keke f i l ed t i m el ypet i t i ons for r evi ew of bot h B I A deci s i ons , w hi ch w er e cons ol i dat ed for purpos es of appe al on D ece m ber5, 2003.
II.
A ppel l at e j ur i s di ct i on i s der i ved fr om 8 U

. S. C

. § 1252. 4(3d Cir. 2003) (c oncluding“that, for nondiscretionary fac tors, the Court maintains jurisdiction, but a s to discretionary decisions we la ck j uri s d i c t i o n ” )

. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b) (1) provides that the Attorney Gene ral 5 may canc el re moval of an inadmissible or deportable alien if the alien me e ts f our t hr e sh old re qu ir e me nts : Th e Attor ne y Ge ne ral may c a

nc e l r e mov a l of

, a nd a dju st t o the status of an alien lawfully admitted fo r p erma nent residenc e, an alien who i s inadmissible or deportablefrom the United States if the alien- - (A ) h as been physically

prese nt in the United States for a c ontin uo us pe ri od

of no t le ss t

han10 ye ars imm e diate ly pr e c e din gthedateof

su c h a pp lic atio n; (B ) has be en a person of g ood moral cha rac ter duri n gsuch pe ri od ; (C) has not been convicted of an off ense unde r sec tion 1182(a) (2), 1227( a)( 2), or 1227( a)( 3) of this title (except in a casedescribed in section 1227(a)(7) of this t i t l e whe re the Attorney Gene ral e x erc ises discretion to grant a waiver); and (D) e stablishes that removal would result in e x ceptional a nd extremely unusual hardship to the a lien 's spouse, par ent, or c hil d, wh o is a c iti zen of the Un ite d State s o r a n a lie n la wf ully T he C our tm us tr evi ew t he B I A ’ s s t atut or yi nt erpr et at i on of t he I N A undert he def

er ent i al s t andar d of C hevr on, U

. S

. A

. , I nc. v. N at ur alR es our ces D ef

ens e C ouns el , In c ., 4 6 7 U

. S

. 8 3 7 (19 8 4 ). I n Fa t i n v . I

NS , 12 F. 3d 1233 ( 3d C i r . 1993) , t hi s C our ts t at ed,

“ ‘if th e sta tu te is sile n t o r am b ig u o u s w ith re sp e c t to th e sp e c if ic i s s ue, t he ques t i on fort he cour ti s w het hert he age ncy ’ s ans w er i s b a s e d o n a p e r mi s s i b l e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e s t at ut e. ’ ” I

d. at 1239 ( quot i ng C hevr on , 4 6 7 U

. S

. at 84 3 ).
III . O k e k e s o u g h t c a n c e lla tio n o f re m o v a l u n d e r 8 U .S .C . § 1229b( b)

. I nas m uch as t he B I A hel d t hat O keke fai l ed t o m eet

5admitted for pe rmane nt residenc e. Id. A thr e sh old

qu e sti on here is whe the r t heB IA c or

re c tly 6 found that O keke ha d committed a crime of inadmissibili ty , where the rec o r d e v id e n c e in c lu d e d

anun c e rti f

ie d N CI C re p o rt a

n d O keke’ s admission. O n ly

u p o na p r o p e r f in d in go f th e f a c t o f a c o ntro ll ed s ub s t an c e o f

f e n s e d o e s th e an a l ys i s p r o c e e d t o th e n e x ti n q

u i r y – whether the BIA properly interpre ted the “stop-time” provision of the c anc e llatio n o f re mov a l statut e . Ho we ve r, the Court ne e d n ot d we ll on this ini tial question b ecause it conc ludes that, eve n if therewas s u f f i c i e nte v i d e n c e o f

th e c o mm i s s i o no f

a c ri m e o f i n a dm i s s i b i l i ty, theB IA’ s inte rp re tatio n o f t he“ sto p - ti m e ”p ro v i s i o n

w a s n e ve rt

he le ss erroneous. The Court ha sten s t o add, howe ver, that Okeke’ s admission t o the offense and c onviction, coupled with the corroborative e videncein the NCI C report, would a ppear to support th e B IA ’ s f

i n d i n go f a c ri m e o f i n a dm i s s i b i l i ty. t he fi r s tt hr es hol d r equi r ement for cons i der at i on of ca ncel l at i on of deport at i on

– co n ti n u o u s p h y sical pre sen ce in the U ni t ed St at es f o r n o t les s th a n ten y e a rs, th is o p in io n lim its it s d isc u ss io n to t hatnar r ow i s s ue. A per i od of cont i nuous pr es ence i s “dee m ed t o end” ei ther ( 1) w hen an a l i en i s s er ved w i t h a N ot i ce t o A ppear pl aci ng hi m i n i m m i gr at i on pr ocee di ngs o r (2 ) w hen t he al i en comm i t s an off

ens e des cr i bed i n 8 U

. S. C

. § 1182( a) ( 2) t hat r ender s hi m i nadmi s s i bl e under t hat s ect i on ordepor t abl e under 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1227( a) ( 2) or( a) ( 4) , “w hi cheve ri s ear l i es t

. ” 8 U

. S. C

. § 1229b( d) ( 1)

. H er e, O keke’ s co m m i s s i on of a c o n tro lled su b sta n c e o f f e n se in 1 9 8 3 is “ a n o f

f e n se re f e rre d to i n” 8 U

. S. C

. § 1182( a) ( 2) ( A ) ( i ) ( I I ) , w h ic h t r i gger ed t he “s t opt i me ” p r o v i s i o n o f t h e c a n c e l l a t i o n o f r e mo v a l s t a t u t e , 8 U. S

. C. § 1 2 2 9 b (d)(1 ). 6
O keke c ont ends t hathi s m os tr ece ntadmi s s i on t o t he8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1) now require s ten year s continuous 7 phy sical pre sence . Seenote 5 su pra . U ni t ed St at es on M ay5, 1984 es t abl i s hed a new and val i d per i od of cont i nuous pr es ence . T he governm entdi s agr ees , r el y i ng on Mat t erof

Mendoz a- Sandi no , 2 2 I. & N

. D ec . 1 2 3 6 (B IA 2 0 0 0 ), for t he p ro p o sit i on t hat once a tr i gg eri ng even toccu rs – comm i s s i on of a c ont r ol l ed subs t ance offe ns e i n t hi s cas e – t he c o n tin u o u s p h y s ic a l p re s e n c e c lo c k d o e s n o t s ta rt a n e w . I n Mend o za- Sandi no , a m ajorit yo f th e e n b an c B IA i nt erpr et ed I N A § 240A ( d) ( 1) , 8 U

. S. C

. § 1229b( d) ( 1) , t o m ean “t hat t he cont i nuous phy s i cal pr es ence cl ock does nots t ar tanew af tert he s er vi ce of

an O r dert o Show C aus e. ” I d. a t1 240. Sever al cour t s of appe al s have de ferred t o t hi s i nt erpr et at i on. S e e Ra m v . I

NS , 243 F. 3d 510, 517- 18 ( 9t h C i r . 2001) ( hol di ng t hatal i en does notbegi n a ne w p eri od of cont i nuous phy s i cal p rese n ce af

ter b eing serv ed w ith an O rde r to Sh o w C a u s e); N a jja r v . A sh c ro

ft , 2 5 7 F .3 d a t 1 2 9 9 -1 3 0 0 ; Mc Br i d e v . I NS , 238 F .3 d 3 7 1 , 3 7 7 (5 th C ir. 2 0 0 1 ); Af o l a y a n v . I NS , 2 19 F. 3d 784, 7 8 9 (8 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ).
H o w e v e r, n o n e o f

th o s e c a s e s , Mendoz a- Sandi no itse lf i ncl uded , ad d resse d the d ist inct issue o f w h ethe r l aw f ul r eentr y aft ercomm i s s i on of an of fens e, r ender i ng th e a l i e n i n a d mi s s i bl e, r es t ar t s t he cl ock. I ndeed, none of th o se ca s es i nvol ved an ind ividu al w h o left t h e U n it ed S ta tes an d ree n tered

. In Mendoz a- Sandi no , t he pet i t i onerhad bee n char ged i n an O r der to S h o w C a u se a n d th e n h a d d e lib e ra telyd e layed o r “ sta lled ” a ll pr ocee di ngs unt i l s even y ear s had el aps ed i n or der t o qual i fyfor t he r equi s i t e cont i nuous phy s i cal pr es ence . Mendoz a- Sandi no 7 w as w ri tt en to f

o restall reli an ce o n a se v en -y ea r pre sen ce w h ere t he pet i t i onerhad s oughtt o “buyt i m e. ” That i s nott he s i t uat i on her e. B eca us e O keke l aw ful l yr eent er ed t he countr y( t w i ce) a f t e ra p r e v i o u s c l o c k

- s t o p p i n g e v e n t , t h i s c a s e i s f a c t u a l l y, i ndeed dr amat i cal l y , di ffe r ent , and t he gover nm ent ’ s r el i ance onJudg e Am bro, in his c on c ur

renc e , inte rp re ts Mend

oza as an 8 inc or re c t e xpre ssi on

of § 1 22 9b (d)( 1) , c onte nding that it wro ng fu lly makes no provision for a new period of c ontinuous phy sical pre sence . By contra st, Judg e Ny

g aard in his diss entingopinion relies on Mend oza to prec lude the ac crual of a sec ond period of con tinuous phy sical pre s ence . Mend oza , o f c ours e , a dd

re sse d a n e nti re ly different issue (

Mend oza held that an alien could not qualify for the require d continuous phy sical p re senceby deliberately

delay ing proce eding s, after

an NTA had been serve d, until suff icient year s had elapse d). B eca

use this opinion relies on the authority and applicability

of Cisneros , it does not join the interpreta tions of Mend oza g iven by

either JudgeAmbro or JudgeNyg aard. Mendoz a- Sandi no i s m i s pl ace d. 8
T hi s anal y s i s i s t her efor e i nfor m ed byanot herpubl i s hed d e c i s i o n f

r o m th e BI A – I

n r e I gnaci o C is ner os - G onz al ez , 2 3 I. & N. Dec

. 6 6 8 ( BI A 20 0 4 )

. I n C isner os - G onz al ez , t he re sp o n d e n t – a n a tiv e a n d c iti z e n o f M e x ico – w a s s e rv e d w ith an O r der t o Show C aus e cha r gi ng hi m w i t h depor t abi l i t yas an al i en w ho ent er ed t he U ni t ed St at es w i t houti ns pect i on, and he w as depor t ed t o M ex ico the s ame day

. H e r etur ned t o t he U ni t ed St at es t he verynextdayw ithoutbei ng admi t t ed or p a r o l e d , a n d h a d r e ma i n e d i n t h i s c o u n t r ys i n c e t h a tt i me . He had t hus os t ens i bl y acc r ued t he re qui s i t e t en y ear s of cont i nuous p h ys i c a l p r e s e n c e f

r o m t h e t i m e o f

h i s u n l a w f

u l r e - e n t r y. D i s t i ngui s hi ng Mendoza- Sandi no , C is ner os - G onz al ez qu i t e prope rl yst at es: [ Mendoz a- Sandi no ] di d not r es ol ve t he q ues t i on, pr es ent ed her e, w het heran al i en w ho depar t ed t he U ni t ed St at es aft er bei ng s er ved w i t h a val i d char gi ng document can s eek r el i ef i n a s ubs equentr emoval pr ocee di ng, bas ed on a ne w p er i od of cont i nuous phy s i cal pr es ence m eas ur ed fr om t he da t e of hi s r etur n. A ppl y i ng t he “s t op- t i m e” r ul e t o an al i en i n t hes e l at t erci r cumst ance si m pl i cat es ambi gui t i es i n t he l anguage and purpos e of sec ti on 240A ( d) ( 1) t hatw er e notpr es enti n M a t t e rof Mend oza-San dino, supra . 23 I

. & N

. D ec. at 670. A ti s s ue i n C is ner os , t hen, w as w het her an al i en w ho depar t s t he U ni t ed St at es can, upon hi s s ubs equent r et ur n, even i f i l l egal , acc r ue a ne w per i od of cont i nuous phy s i cal pr es ence – m eas ur ed fr om t he dat e of hi s r etur n – s o as to d e m o n stra te sta tu to ry e lig ib ili ty f o r ca n c e llatio n o f

re m o v a l. T h e B I A h e ld th a t su c h a n a lien c o u ld e sta b lish th e re q u isite c o n tin u o u s p h y s ic a l p re s e n c e . I d. at672.
C is ner os - G onz al ez , t her efor e, al l ow s fort he ac crual of a n ew p eriod o f c o n ti n u o u s p h y s ica l prese n ce u p o n an ali en ’s r eentr yi nt o t he U ni t ed St at es . T he B I A , att he t i m e of i t s rul i ng i n t hi s cas e, r el i ed hea vi l yon Mendoz a- San d ino , l acki ng t he b en efi tof t he C is ner os - G onz al ezd e c i s i o n , whi c h was i s s ued aft er t he B I A ’ s deci s i on. A ppl y i ng C is ner os - G onz al ezher e, t he c lo c k s ta r te d a n e w a s s o o n a s O k e k e re e n ter e d th e c o u n tryin 1984.
C is ner os - G onz al ez , i ti s t r ue, i nvol ved t w o r emoval p r o c e e d i n g s , whe r e t h e c l o c k s t o p p e d u p o n t h e f i l i n g o f t he N ot i ce t o A ppeari n t he fi r s tr emoval pr ocee di ng. O keke, acc or di ng t o t he r ecor d, h ad comm i t t ed a c r i m e of i nadmi s s i bi l i t y , buthad not been s er ved w i t h a N ot i ce t o A ppear unt i l 1997. H ow ever , t he comm i s s i on of a s peci fi ed cr i m e i s t he funct i onal equi val entof t h e servi ce of a N ot i ce t o A ppearfor purpos es of t r i gger i ng t he “ stop- t i m e” pr ovi s i on. A s s t at ed ear l i er , a per i od of cont i nuous pr es ence i s “dee m ed t o end” eit her( 1) w hen an a l i en i s s er ved w i t h a N ot i ce t o A ppear pl aci ng hi m i n i m m i gr at i on pr ocee di ngs or ( 2) w hen t h e a l i en comm i t s an off

ens e des cr i bed i n 8 U

. S. C

. § 1182( a) ( 2) t hat r ender s hi m i nadmi s s i bl e under t hat s ect i on ordepor t abl e under 8 U

. S. C

. § 1227 (a)(2) or( a) ( 4) , “w hi cheve ri s ear l i es t

. ” 8 U

. S. C

. § 1229b( d) ( 1)

. A s a r es ul t , t he di ffe r en ce in tr i gger i ng event s i n no w aypr eclud es t he appl i cat i on of C isneros-G onz al ez . W hatm at t er s her e i s t he re as on fort he r ecomm ence m ent o f th e a c c ru a l p e rio d f

o r p u rp o se s o f

c a n c e llatio n o f

r e m o v a l. A s i n C is ner os - G onz al ez , O keke r eent er ed t he count r y , t hough t he re e n try in his case w as l aw f ul

. T he cr i t i cal fac tfor r es t arti ng t he cl ock i n C isneros- G on zal ez w as t he reent ry , not t h e f i l i n g o f t h e Not i c e t o App e a ri n t h e f i r s tr emoval p roc ee d ing

. W h e re , a s h ere , there is ( law fu l) ree n tryaf ter a c lo c k -sto p p in g e v e n t ( i.e

. , t he comm i s si on of a c ont r ol l ed s ubs t ance offe ns e) , t he cl ock s t ar t s anew . I ndeed, O keke i s an a fo rtio ri appl i cat i on of t he C is ner os doct r i ne, par t i cul ar l yw hen on e con si ders that O k e k e’s reent ryw as la w fu l and C isne ros’s w as not– y etC i s ner os w as al l ow ed t o qual i fyforhi s cont i nuous pr es ence . M or eover , t hi s cas e i s notaboutdepor t i ng an al i en w ho had comm i t t ed a cr i m e. T he N T A i n t hi s cas e made no r efe r ence t o O keke’ s al l eged c om m i s s i on of t he contr ol l ed s ubs t ance o ff en se. T h e C o u rt ex p resse s n o o p inion as to O k ek e’s i m m i gr ants t atus had s uch a c har ge bee n m ade, ei t herw hen t he act i on w as al l egedl ycomm i t t ed orw hen t h e N T A w as e v e n tu a lly f

ile d

. T he N T A pr ovi des t hatO keke e nt er ed t he U ni t ed St at es o n M a y5 , 1 9 8 4 to a tten d T o u ro C o lleg e . It i s s ig n if ica n t th a t, al t hough O keke had i ni t i al l y ent er ed t he U ni t ed S t at es i n 1981 and had, aft erdepar t i ng, r eent er ed agai n i n D ece m berof 1983, t he N T A cont ai ned no cha r ge r es pect i ng hi s al l eged c om m i s s i on of a c ont r ol l ed s ubs t ance offe nce i n J anuaryof 1983. R at her , as not e 1 above r efl ect s , t he N T A confi nes i t s el f t o t he s t udent s t atus of O keke. A nd i ti s t hats t atus t hati s deal tw i t h her e. Pur s uantt o t he expr es s t er m s of t he N T A , t hen, i ti s t hat fin al en trythat sh o u ld b e co n side red in calcu lat ing the t en y ea rs cont i nuous p h y sical pr es ence . T o focus on event s occurr i ng p rio r to th a t ti m e , w h e n th e N T A m a k e s n o m e n tio n o f th e m , isOn Novembe r 28, 2003, the B IA denied O keke’ s motion for 9 rec onsideration of its previous dec ision. Although Oke ke also see ks re vie w o f t

hat dec isi on , it ha s b e e n r e nd e re d mo ot b y our d e c isi on

to grant his Petition for Review of theBIA’s F ebrua ry 25, 2 003 order dis mis sin ghis a

pp e a l. b o th illo g ic a l a n d u n

ju s t.
I V. O keke a dm i t t ed t o comm i t t i ng a contr ol l ed s ubs t ance o f f e n s e in 1 9 8 3 ; “ a n o f f e n s e re f e rr e d to in ” 8 U .S .C . § 1182( a) ( 2)(A )(i )(I I), w h ich im p li ca ted th e “ s t op- t i m e” pr ovi s i on o f th e c an ce ll ati o n o f re m o v al st atute, 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 2 2 9 b (d)(1 ). Yet , b e c a u s e O keke la w fu lly r eent er ed t hi s count r yaft er comm i t t i ng a cr i me o f i nadmi s s i bi l i t y , t hi s opi ni on hol ds t hatt he a c c ru a l p e ri o d s h o u ld h a v e re c o m m e n c e d

. S e e M a t t erof C is ner os , supra . A ccor di ngl y , t h e C our tw i l l G R A N T t he Pet i t i on for R evi ew of t he B I A ’ s deci s i ons , and rem an d t hi s m at t ert o t he B I A forfur t herpr ocee di ngs cons i s t entw i t h t hi s opi ni on. 9Se c tio n 1 22 9b (b )( 1) (A ) re a ds : 10 [The A t t or neyG ener al m aycanc el r emoval of an al i en w ho i s i nadmi s s i b le ordepor t abl e fr om t he U n ited S tate s if th e a lien ] h a s b e e n p h y sic a lly pr es enti n t he U ni t ed St at es fora cont i nuous peri od of n ot l ess than 10 y ears i m m ediat ely p re c e d in g th e d a te o f

s u c h a p p lic a tio n [ .] Se c tio n 1 22 9b (d)( 1) prov ide s: 11
T er m i nat i on of cont i nuous per i od
For purpos es of t hi s s ect i on, anyper i o d o f cont i nuous r es i dence orcont i nuous phy s i cal pr es ence i n t he U ni t ed S ta te s s h a ll b e d e e m e d to e n d (A ) . . . w h e n th e a lien is serv ed a n o ti ce to ap p ea r un d er 

### sectio n 1 2 2 9 (a) o f th is title, o r (B ) w h e n th e alienh as co mm ittedano f f en se re ferr ed to in se ct ion 11 82 (a)( 2) of this ti tl e that r enders the a l i e n i na dm i s s ibl e t o the Uni t e d St at e s unde r s e c t i on 11 82 (a)( 2) of

this ti tl e or remo v ab le from the Unite d St at e s unde r

s e c t i on 1227( a ) ( 2) or

1227( a ) ( 4) of th is title, w h ich ev er is earliest. Th e B IA h e ld t

hat in 1983 Ok e kepo sse sse d ma ri jua na in 12 violation of New Y ork Penal L aw § 221.20. AMBRO, Circ uit Judg e, conc urring Mr

. Ok e ke se e ks c anc e llatio n of re mov a l. T o q ua lif y , h e mus t establ i s h , amongother thing s, continuous phy sical pre sencein the United States for ten year s immediately prec eding his application for that relief

. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A). “[ A] ny period”of 10 continuous phy sical pre senceis “dee med t o en d” whe n an alien commits a controlled substanceoffe nse. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1) ; 8 11 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2) . The B oard of Immigration Ap p ea ls (“B IA”) held that, under

§ 1229b(d)( 1), O k eke’s 1983 controlled substanc e o f f e n s e e n d e d

h i s p e ri o d

o f c o nt i nu o u s p hy s i c a l p r e s e n c e . T h e B IA 12further held that, under In re M

endoza-Sandino , 22 I

. & N. Dec . 1236 (B IA 2000), a new period of continuous phy sical pre sencecould not beg in after

an old period ends under § 1229b( d)(1) . It thus concluded th at O k e k e had notacc r ued t he r equi r ed t en y earper i od nece s s ar y to qua l i fyforcanc el l at i on of r emoval under 

### § 12 29 b(b)(1), as he firs t e nter ed the U ni t ed St at es i n 1981 and h is p e rio d o f

c o n tin u o u s p h y sic a l p re se n c e e n d e d in 1 9 8 3 (w ith t he com m i s s i on of t he drug offens e i n N ew Y or k) and coul d not starto v er. 

### Oke k e arg ue s that , e ve n a s s um i ng he c om m i tt e d a qua l i fyi ng dr

ug offe ns e i n 1983, h e be gan ane w pe r i od of co n tinu o u s p hy sical p resen ce o n M ay 5 , 1 9 8 4

—th e d ate o f h is m ost r ec ent adm is si on into the U nite d Stat es . Bec ause he was c o n t i nu o u s l y phy s i cal l ypr es enti n t he U ni t ed St at es unt i l he a p p lied f o r c a n c e llatio n o f

re m o v a l m o re th a n ten y e a rs la ter in 1 9 9 8 , O k e k e c o n ten d s h e m e e ts th e ten y e a r p e rio d re q u ire m e n t.
B oth Judg e G arth and I agree w i t h O kek e. B ut w e do so b ytr av eli n g d iffe ren t path s o f a n aly sis. H e b eli ev es th e B IA ’s r ece nt deci s i on i n I

n r e C is ner os - G onz al ez , 23 I

. & N

. D ec. 668 ( B I A 2004) , l i m i t s t he r eac h of Mend oza a n d m a n d a tes th e re su lt her e. I do notbel i eve C is ner os goes s o farand i ns t ead c oncl ude th a t Mend oza i s a n i mpe r mi s s i b l e r e a d i ng of 

### § 1 22 9b (d)( 1), even after

ac cording the BIA the deference ca ll edfo r und er Ch evron U

.S.A., Inc. v. Na tural R es. Def . Cou ncil , I nc. , 467 U.S. 83 7 (19 84 ).
I. C is ner os does not ho l d t ha t a ne w pe r i o d of cont i nuou s phy s i cal pres ence begi ns w henever an ali en reen ters the U n i ted S tat es. A s Judge G arth co rr ect l yno t es, Ci s ne r os st at es t hat 

### M en d oza “di d notr es ol ve t he quest i on, pr es ent ed her e, w het her a n a lien w h o d e p a rte d th e U n ited S tate s a f ter b e in g se rv e d w ith a val i d char gi ng document can s eek r el i ef i n a s ubs equent r emoval pr ocee di ng, bas ed on a new per i od of cont i nuousC is ner os cr aft ed a s ens i bl e r ul e forcal cul at i ng per i ods 13 of pr es ence w it h rega r d t o not i ces t o appea r( “N T A s ”) i ns ofar as , undert hatcas e, i f t he out come of t he pr oce edi ngs i ni t i at ed byan N T A i s favor abl e t o an al i en ( ori f an a l i en rec ei ves an N T A bym i s t ake) , t he al i en w i l l not “l os e” c ont i nuous phy s i cal pr es ence t i m e ac cumul at ed bef or e he ors he r ece i v ed t he

“ i n v a l i d ” NT A. p h y s ic a l p re s e n c e m e a s u re d f ro m th e d a te o f

h is re tu rn .” C is ner os , 2 3 I. & N

. D e c . a t 6 7 0

. In f a c t, C isneros hol ds t hatan al i en w ho depar t ed t he U ni t ed St at es aft erbei ng s erv ed w i t h a v a li d c h a r g in g d o c u m e n t can s eek r el i ef i n a s ubs equentr emoval pr ocee d ing , bas ed on a ne w per i od of cont i nuous phy s i cal pr es ence m eas ur ed fr om t he dat e of hi s r etur n. H ow ever , t he r eas on t he al i en ca n s eek r el i ef i n a s ubs equentr emoval proceed i ng i s notbeca us e he or s he l eft and r eent er ed t he U ni t ed St a t e s . Rat he r , t he BI A r e a s on e d, i ti s be c a us e 

### “ th e ‘ n o tice to appe ar ’ r e fe rr e d t o i n s e c t i on [1229b( d) ( 1) ] pe rt a i ns onl y t o the charging do cum ent s er

ved in the p roce edings in wh ic h the al ie n appl i e s f o r c anc e l l at i on of r e m ova l , and not t o c har gi ng d o cu men ts se rv edo nth e a li eninp ri o r p ro ce ed ings” ( h e r e i n a f t er “t he C is ner os rul e”)



### . Id

. at672. 13
T he C is ner os rul e, i n c o ntext , app l i ed as fo l l ow s. C i s ner os r ece i ved a n N T A forhi s fi r s tr emoval pr ocee di ng ( “N T A #1”) i n 1990. H e w as depor t ed on J anuary10, 1991, and i l l egal l yr etur ned t he nextday

. H e w as pr es enti n the U ni t ed St at es fr om t hen unt i l h e re cei ved an N T A forhi s s econd r emoval pr ocee di ng ( “N T A #2”) on J une 5, 2001— m or e t han 10 y ears aft er hi s i l l egal r et urn. W hen C i sneros 

### applie d to cance l the r e m o v a lo r d e r

b a s e do nth e p r o c e e d i n g s b e g uno nJun e 5, 2 0 0 1 , th e B IAh eldth at o n ly N T A # 2 , n o t N T A# 1 , en d edh is p erio do f p hy sical p r e s en ce un d er § 1 2 2 9 b (d )(1 ) b ecau se, to re peat , “ the ‘ no ti ce to appear ’ r eferr ed to in [§ 12 29 b(d)(1)] pe rt a i ns onl y

t o the c har gi ng d o c um e nt s e rve d i n the

### pr oc e e di ngs in whi c h [Ci s ne r os ] appl i e [d] for c anc e l l at i on of rem o v al [ th at i s , N T A# 2 ] , an dn o t to ch arg in g d o cum en ts serv edo n[ h im ] inp rio r p ro cee d i n g s [ th at is, N T A# 1 ] .” C is ner os , 2 3 I. & N . D e c . a t 6 7 2

. 

### I n thi s c ont e xt , I do not

be l i e ve that

Oke ke c an r e l y

on Ci s ne ros , f o r it does notover r ul e Men d o za ’s det er m i nat i on t hat “t he cl ock cannot be r es ets o t hatan al i en ac crues cont i nuous ph y sical pr es ence . . . aft er. . . t he comm i s s i on of a s peci fi ed cr i m e. ” Mend oza , 22 I

. & N

. D ec. at1240. C isneros does not change Men d o za ’s ru l e t h a t , wh e n a n a l i e n c o mmi t s a c r i me sp e c if ied in § 1 2 2 9 b (d )(1 ) o r re c e iv e s a n N T A sp e c if ied in § 1229b( d) ( 1) , any p er i od of cont i nuous pr es ence ends and no o th e r p e ri o d s h a ll e v e r b e g in a g a i n . In s te a d , C is ner os m e re ly clarifies w h ich N T A is spe cified in § 1 2 2 9 b (d)(1 ) ( 

### onl y the NTA s e rve d i n the pr oc e e di ngs i n whi c h the alie n appl i e s for can cellatio no f

rem o v al)

. C is ner os , 23 I

. & N

. D ec. at 6 7 0. U n d er Mendoz a, an d e v e n a fter C is ner os , O keke c annotr es et his cl ock and accrue con t i nu ou s phy si cal presence t i m e beca use h e c o m m itte d a n o f

f e n s e s p e c if

ie d in § 1 2 2 9 b (d )( 1 ). 

### Th e m er e f act o f h is sub sequ en t reen terin g (w h eth er law f u l o r un law f

u l) d o es n o t ch an g e th is situ atio n . T hu s, if O k ek e is to p rev ail, I b eliev e th at w e m

u st co n clu d e th at M

en d oza ’s i nt e r

pr e t at i on of § 1229b( d) ( 1) 

### i s not

pe rm i tt e d. F o r th e f

o llo w in g reaso n s, I be l i e ve we s houl d do s o. I I . Ok e k e be gan a ne w pe r i od of c ont i nuous p h ys i c a l p r e s e n c e a f

t e r h e c o m m i t t e d a sp ec ifie d o f f en se b ec au se Mend oza’s in terp reta tio n o f§ 1 229b( d) ( 1) is im p erm issib le. Se c t i on 1 22 9b( d) ( 1) m us t be i nt erpre ted t o al l ow t he cont i nuou s phy s i cal pres ence c l ock t o res t art af t er t he com m i s s i on of a spec i fi ed off

en se 

### . M en d oza ’s i nt e r

pr e t at i on of § 1229b (d )( 1) —that the c l oc k c annot

be r e s e t s o that an a l i e n a c c r

ue s c ont i nuous

### phy s i c a lpr e s e nc e a ft e r the c om

m i s s i onof

as pe ci fied offe ns e—i s i nc orr ect. Pr ope r l y c ons tr ui ng the s t at

ut e , Oke ke be gan ane w pe r i od of c ont i nuous ph y s i c a lpr e s e nc e a ft e r he co mm ittedth e o f

f en se at issu e. W e r e vi e w the BI A’ s i nt e r pr e t at i on of § 1229 b (d )(1) a c c or di ng t o the s t andar ds s e t out i n Che v ron . See K

a ts is v. I NS, 9 9 7 F .2 d 10 67 , 106 9 (3dCir. 19 93 ). If Co ng re ss has dire ct ly spok en onan is sue, w e g iv e the BIA n o d efere nce. Che v ron , 467 U. S. at

842- 43. I f as t at

ut e i s s i l e nt

or am bi guous onthe i ss ue, we as k w h ether the BIA’s i nter pret at ion is bas ed o na p erm issib le co n stru ctio no f th e statute. I

d. at 843. Howe ve r , “ [t ]he judi c i ary i s the fi na lauthor i ty

on i s s ue s of st at ut or y c on s tr uc t i on. . . . I f a

c ourt , e m

pl oyi ng tr adit ional tools of statutory constr

ucti on , asc erta ins that C on gres s had an i nt e nt i on on the pr e c i s e que s t i on at i s s ue , that

i nt en tion i s the law andm

ust be given effect. ” Che vron , 4 6 7 U .S . at 8 4 3 n .9 (c it at ions om itte d).
P e rha p s the m o st fu n d am en tal p ri n ciple o f statuto ry c o n stru c tio n is th a t w o rd s in a sta tu te m u st b e g iv e n th e ir or di nar y m eani ng w heneve rpos s i bl e. See W al t ers v. Metr o. E duc. E nt ers . , I

nc. , 519 U

. S. 202, 207 ( 1997 ). Sect i on 1229b( d) ( 1)’s cl aus e “a nyper i od .

. . s hal l be dee m ed t o end” 

### s houl d be gi ve n i t s or di nary m e ani ng: any

pe r i od e nds

. The o r d i n ary m ean in g o f

th is clau se s i mpl yd o e s n o ti mpl yt h at f u tu re p e ri o d s o f c o n tin u o u s p re s e n c e a re b a rr e d . Y e t, Mend oza notonl y i nt erpr et ed i t t o m ean any per i od ends , butal s o added wh o l e c l o t h t h a t n o f

u t u r e p e r i o d c a n b e g i n a n e w . 2 2 I

. & N. D ec. at1240.
A not herpl ai n language ar gum entfori nt erpr et i ng § 1229b( d) ( 1) t o al l o w t he cont i nuous phy s i cal pr es ence cl ock t o r e s t a r tf

o c u s e s o n i t s “ a n y p e r i o d ” l a n g u a g e . “ [ A ] n y” i ndi cat es t hatt her e ca n be mul t i pl e per i ods of phy s i cal pr es ence . A s B I A M ember G uendel s ber ger ’ s di s s enti n Mendoz a no t es:t he cor e st at ement t hat “any per i od of cont i nuous p re se n c e . . . sh a ll b e d e e m e d to e n d ” stro n g ly s ugges t s t hatthe r e maybe more t han one pe r i od to b e c o n sid e re d . A lth o u g h [ § 1 2 2 9 b (d )] c le a rly cut s off the ac cru al of a pe r i od of t i m e pr i ort o a s peci fi ed event , i tdoes nots peak t o per i ods of tim e a f ter th e e v e n t in q u e stio n . T h e re f e re n c e to e n d in g “ a n yperi od ” o f

p h y sic a l p re se n c e su g g e sts t hat anot her peri od of p hy si cal presence ensu es. 2 2 I. & N

. D ec . at 12 4 5 -46 (G u en d elsb erg er, dissen ti n g ).
In a d d i t i o n , 

### i nt e r

pr e t i ng § 1229b( d) ( 1) t o al l ow t he cont i nuous phy s i cal pr es ence cl ock to res t ar tavoi ds a l ogi cal con un drum , as Men d o za ’s i nt erpr et at i on r eq u i r es per i ods of cont i nuous phy s i cal pr es ence t o “end” befor e t heyeven be gi n. B I A M ember V i l l agel i u, di s s ent i ng i n Mend oza , p o in ted o u t th is i n c o n g r u i t y: T h e w o rd “ p e ri o d ” m e a n s “ a n in te rv a l o f tim e .” Put t i ng t he w or ds “any per i od” i n cont extw i t h t he w or ds “cont i nuous phy s i cal pr es en ce” ca nnot l og i cal l yreferto a pe ri od of ti m e w ho se cont i nui t yw oul d be ende d befor e t he per i od of tim e e v e n b e g in s b e c a u se , log ica lly , co n tin u ity w o u ld n o t tr a n s c e n d its o w n e n d in g . 

### 22 I. & N. Dec

. at1254 ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) ( V i l l agel i u, d is s e n tin g ).
A f u rth e r a rg u m e n t f

o r in ter p re tin g § 1 2 2 9 b (d )(1 ) to a llo w th e c o n tin u o u s p h y sic a l p re se n c e c lo c k to re sta rt is th a t it pr es er ves t he c o n ce p tof a “ per i od of cont i nuous phy s i cal pr es ence,” ex pl i ci t l ydes cr i bed i n t he pl ai n l anguage of t he s t atut e, w i t h r egar d t o al i ens s eeki ng canc el l at i on of rem oval u n d e r § 1 2 2 9 b ( b ) ( 1 ) w h o h a v e c o m m itt e d a c rim e sp e c if ied in § 1229b( d) ( 1)

. O t her w i s e, t he conceptof a “ per i od ofcont i nuous ph y si cal pr es ence ” i s des t r oy ed bec aus e, as expl ai ned bel ow , t he ef f ect i ve rule u n d er Me n d o za ’s i nt erpr et at i on of § 1229b( d) ( 1) i s t hat i f y ou comm i ta s peci fi ed offe ns e y o u can neve rgeta ca ncel l at i on of r emoval under § 1229b( b) ( 1) ( r egar dl es s of anyper i ods of con t i n u o u s p r es ence , no m at t erw hen or how l ong t hey w er e)

. I f C ongr es s had meant th is to b e th e ru le, it w o u ld sim p lyh a v e sta ted it.
T h e re aso n the e ff

ec ti v e ru le un d er Men d o za ’s i nt erpr et at i on of § 1229b( d) ( 1) i s t hati f y ou comm i ta s peci fi ed offe ns e y ou can never get a canc el l at i on of r emo v al un der § 1 2 2 9 b (b )(1 ) is a s f

o llo w s. S e c tio n 1 2 2 9 b (b )(1 ) re q u ire s th a t, f o r ca n c e llatio n o f re m o v a l, a n a lien m u st h a v e b e e n “ p h y sic a lly presenti n the U nit ed S t at es f or a con t i nu ou s p eri od of n ot l ess t han t en y ears i m m edi at el y pr ece di ng the dat e of s uch ap p li ca ti o n . ” 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 2 2 9 b (b)(1 )(A ) (em p h asis ad d ed ). T hus , an al i en cannot us e an “ol d per i od”— t hat i s , a pas tper i od t hati s not“i m m edi at el ypr ece di ng” hi s orherapp li cat i on for canc el l at i on of r em oval under§ 1229b( b) ( 1)

— t o s uppor ts uch an appl i cat i on. T hus , forexampl e, an al i en fi l i ng an appl i cat i on i n y ear 1 9 , who a r r i v e d i n t h e Uni t e d St a t e s i n y e a r 0 and comm i t t ed a s peci fi ed off ens e i n y ear10, coul d n o t use t he per i od fr om y ear0 t o y ear10 beca us e t hatper i od does not “i m m edi at el ypr ece d[e] ” t he fi l i ng of t he appl i cat i on i n y ear19. H ence , i f ( 1) an al i en ca n neverus e an ol d per i od, and ( 2) under Mend oza’s in te rp re ta tio n , th e c lo c k c a n n e v e r r e s ta rt , Mend oza , 22 I. & N

. D ec. at 12 40 , t hen as soon a s an al i en co m m i t s a sp ec ifi ed o ff

en se h e o r sh e w il l n ev er b e a b le t o sh o w ten y ea rs of cont i nuous p h y s i cal pr es ence i m m edi at el y pr ece di ng t he appl i cat i on for canc el l at i on of re m oval

. T her efor e, t he ef fec t i ve r ul e under Men d o za ’s in ter p re tatio n o f § 1 2 2 9 b (d )(1 ) is th a t if y ou comm i t a s peci fi ed offe ns e y ou can nevergeta ca ncel l at i on of r emoval under § 1229b( b) ( 1)

. I n t hi s cont ext, int erpr et i ng § 1229b( d) ( 1) t o al l ow t he cont i nuous phy s i cal pr es ence cl ock t o r es t ar tpr eser ves t he conc eptof a “ per i od of cont i nuous p h y s ica l prese n ce , ” o therw ise d estroy ed u n d er Men d o za ’s int erpr et at i on of § 1229b( d) ( 1) , w i t h r egar d t o al i ens s eeki ngJudg e Nyg aard would hold that Okeke is in elig ible for 14 canc ellation of re moval under § 1229b(b)(1) (C). Howe ver, ne ither theI J nor the B IA ad dr e sse d the iss ue of wh e the r Ok e keis i ne lig ibl e under § 1229b(b)( 1)(C), and neither the Gover nment nor Okeke has raise d th e iss ueto us. As theGo ve rnme nt i tse lf a c kn ow le dg e s in

its brief, the issue bef

ore us is not whethe r Oke ke wa s convicted of a controlled substanc e offense ( and is thus ineligible f or ca ncellation of re m o v al under § 1229b(b)(1) (C)), but rather whe ther Oke ke commi tted an of

fensethat perma

nently ended his pe riod of continuous phy sical pre sence(and is thus inel igible under § 1229b (b )( 1 )( A)). SeeGo ve rnme nt B ri e f at 16 -1 9 ( “ Ok e keis ine lig ibl e fo r c anc e llatio n of re mov a l no t be c a us e he wa s convic ted but beca use he committed a

c ontr oll e d s ub sta

nc e of fens e .”(e mph a sis in origina l)). We thus may not raise the issue sua sponte and dec ide it de novo . Rather, wemust remand so that the B IA may have the f ir s t o p p o rtu

n it y to a d dr e s s th e issue. Se eIN S v . V e ntu ra , 5 37 U. S. 12, 15-16 (2002) (holdingthat the Ninth Circuit erre d in addre ssing an is s u e n o t y et addr essed by the B IA and statingthat “[a] court of appeals ‘ is not ge nerally

empowered to conduc t a de novo inq uir y int o the matter be ing reviewe d and to rea ch its own conc lusions based on such an inqu i ry .’ Rather , ‘the prope r cour se, except in rare circ umstances, is to rema

nd to the ag ency for additional investigation o r e xp l an at i o n . ’” (qu o t i n g Fla. Power &Light Co. v. Lorion , 470 U.S. 729, 744 (1985)))

. A n o th e r a rg u m e n t f

o r in ter p re tin g § 1 2 2 9 b (d )(1 ) to 15 a llo w th e c o n tin u o u s p h y sic a l p re se n c e c lo c k to re sta rt is th a t, canc el l at i on of r emoval under§ 1 2 29b( b) ( 1) w ho have co m m it ted a crim e sp ec ifi ed in § 1 2 2 9 b (d)(1 ).
I m por t ant l y , t her e i s an eve ntt hatbar s an al i en fr om re c e iv in g c a n c e llatio n o f re m o v a l u n d e r § 1 2 2 9 b (b )(1 ), b u t itis no tcom m i ssi on of a sp eci fi ed o ffen se; rather, i ti s convi ct i on of a s peci fi ed off

ens e. Secti o n 1229b( b) ( 1) ( C ) s ay s t hatan al i en c a n n e v e r g e t a c a n c e llatio n o f re m o v a l u n d e r § 1 2 2 9 b (b )(1 ) if he ors he has “bee n convi ct ed” of a s peci fi ed of

fe ns e. I f t he

14 ru le w a s th e sa m e f

o r c o m m iss io n s a n d c o n v ic tio n s, w h yd id C ongr es s m ake the di s t i nct i on? 15w h e n th e c lo c k is n o t allo w e d to re sta rt, an o d d ru le ( p ro b a b ly n o ti nt ended byC ongr es s ) i s cr eat ed forper m anentr es i dent ali en s ap p ly ing fo r ca n ce ll ati o n o f re m o v a l u n d er § 1 2 2 9 b (a). 

### Thi s pr ovi si on doe s not

have an “ i mm e di at e l y

pr e c e di ng the date of such applic at io n” re qu ir em ent. Rather , § 12 29 b(a) re qu ir es on ly

that an al ie n “has r es ided in the Unite d S tate s continuo usly

fo r 7 years .” 8 U .S.C. § 12 29 b(a) (2). T h e f o llo w in g ex am

p le w ill illu strate th e stran g e ru le that re sult s und er

§ 1 22 9b (a) w hen t he cont i nuous pr es ence cloc k (or c o n ti n u o u s reside n ce cloc k in the ca se o f § 1 2 2 9 b (a)) i s notal l ow ed t o r es t ar t

. P erm anentr es i dental i en “X ” has reside d in the U n ited S tat es sin ce y ea r 0, bu t i n y ea r 1 comm i t t ed a of

fens e spec i fi ed i n § 1229b( d) ( 1)

. I f X appl i es for canc el l at i on of r emoval under§ 1229b( a) i n y ear 20, X w i l l not qual i fybeca us e X di d not reside i n t he U ni t ed St at es cont i nuous l y for 7 y ear s , as X ’ s per i od of cont i nuous r es i dency ended i n y ear1 and di d notr es t ar t

. O n the o the rhand, per m anentr es i dental i en “Y ” has onl yr es ided i n t he U ni t ed S t at es si nce y ear 11 , and i n y ear 19 com m i tted a n o ffen se s peci fi ed i n § 122 9 b (d)( 1)

. I f Y appl i es forcanc el l at i on of r emoval under§ 1229b( a) i n y ear20, Y w i l l qual i fybeca us e Y r es i ded i n t he U ni t ed S t at es cont i nuous l yforover7 y ear s ( fr om y ear11 t o 19)

. W hyw o u ld C o n gr es s pr efe rt o canc el t he r emoval of Y w ho has r es i ded cont i nuous l y i n t he U ni t ed St at es forappr oxi m at el yhal f as l ong as X ? M or e i m por t ant ly , w hy w oul d C ongr es s choos e t o can ce l the r emoval of Y ( w ho has c o m m itt e d a n o f

f e n se re c e n tl y, is le ss lik e lyre f o rm e d , an d is m or e l i kel yt o r eci di vat e) , butnot canc el t he re m oval of X ( w ho has comm i t t ed an of

fens e l es s r ece nt l y , i s m or e l i kel yr efor m ed, a n d i s l e s s l i k e l yt o r e c i d i v a t e ) ? The Confe renc e Report s t at es that “[n]ew section 240A 16 [codified at 8 U.S.C. §1229b] establishes re vised rules for the ty pe of M o re o v e r, t h e f

o re ru n n e r s ta tu to ry s e c tio n to § 1 2 2 9 b , § 244 of t he I m m i gr at i on and N at i onal i t y A ct ( “I N A ”) (co d ifi ed at8 U

. S. C

. § 1254 ( r epea l ed 1996) ) , w as i nt erprete d as 16relief that is curre ntly

availableto excludab l e and deportablealiens un d e r 2 1 2 ( c ) an d 2 4 4 ( a)

- ( d)

. ” Jo in t E x p lan a to ryS tate m e n t, C onfer ence R epor t : I l l egal I m m i gr at i on R efor m and I m m i gr ant R es pons i bi l i t yA ctof 1996, H

. R

. R ep. N o. 104- 828, 142 C ong. R ec . H 1 0 8 4 1 -02 , H 1 0 8 9 6 , 1 9 9 6 W L 5 3 9 3 1 5 (19 9 6 ). a llo w in g th e c o n tin u o u s p h y sic a l p re se n c e c lo c k to re sta rt, Mend oza , 2 2 I. & N

. D ec . at 12 4 6 (G u en d elsb erg er, dissen ti n g ), and C ongr es s nevers t at ed t hat§ 1229b s houl d be i nt erpr et ed d if f e re n tly. C

f. L in d a h l v . O

ffi c e o f P e rs . M

g m t. , 470 U

. S. 768, 782 n. 15 ( 1985) (W her e “‘ C ongr es s adopt s a new l aw i ncorpor at i ng s ect i ons of pr i orl aw , C ongress n or m al l ycan be p re su m e d to h a v e h a d k n o w led g e o f th e in ter p re tatio n g iv e n to t he i ncorpor at ed l aw , atl eas ti ns ofaras i taff ect s t he new s t atut e. ’ ”) ( quot i ng Lori l lard v

. P ons , 434 U

. S. 575, 580- 8 1 (19 7 8 )); P i er ce v . U

nder w ood , 487 U

. S. 552, 567 ( 1988) ( r eenac t m entof a s t atut e “ge ner al l y inc l udes t he s et t l ed j udi ci al i nterpret at i on ” t hereof). T herefore, w e presum e t hat C on gress a lso in ten d e d § 1 2 2 9 b (d )(1 ) to a llo w th e c lo c k to re sta rt.
Un d e rt h e o l d s t a t u t o r yr e g i me

— I NA § 2 4 4 , 8 U

. S

. C. § 1254— t he dur at i on of cont i nuous phy s i cal pr es ence an al i en h a d t o d e mon s t r a t e i n o r d e r t o b e e l i g i b l e f o r s u s pens i on of depor t at i on and adj us t m ent of s t atus depende d on w hyt he al i en w as depo rt abl e. A n al i en depor t abl e on mostnoncr i m i nal gr ounds had t o demonst r at e s even y ear s of cont i nuous phy s i cal pr e s e n c e i mme d i a t e l y p r e c e d i n g t h e a l i e n ’ s a p p l i c a t i o n for s u s p e n s i o n o f

d e p o r t a t i o n . I NA § 24 4( a ) ( 1 ) , 8 U. S

. C. § 1254( a) ( 1)

. H ow ever , an al i en depor tabl e on mostcr i m i nal gr ounds h ad t o demonst r at e t en y ear s of cont i nuous phy s i cal pr es ence i m m edi at el yfol l ow i ng t he comm i s s i on of t he ac t , or as s um pt i on of t he s t atus , cons t i t ut i ng a ground f ordepor t at i on. I N A § 244( a) ( 2) , 8 U

. S. C

. § 1254( a) ( 2)

. A s B I A M ember G uendel s ber gerexpl ai ned i n hi s di s s enti n Mend oza , “t he r es et t i ng of t he phy s i cal pr es ence cl ock upon t he occ ur r ence of p a rticu lar e v e n ts h a s b e e n a n d re m a in s in h e re n t in th e e lig ib ili ty pr ovi s i on s fors us pens i on of depor t at i on. ” 22 I

. & N

. D ec. at1 2 4 6 (G u en d els b e rg e r, d issen ti n g ) 

### ( ci t i ng I n r e Buf al i no , 1 1 I. & N

. D ec. 351, 357- 58 ( B IA 1 9 6 5 ) ( fi ndi ng t hata r es pondent w ho i s depor t abl e unders ever al gr ounds , one of w hi ch i s l i s t ed i n § 24 4(a) (2) , i s inel i gibl e for rel i ef un der § 24 4(a) (1) and m ust es t abl i s h el i gibi l i t yunder§ 244( a) ( 2) fr om t he dat e of the c o m m iss io n o f

th e las t d e p o rta b le a c t)). T h a t th e f o re ru n n e r to § 1229b w as i nt erpr et ed t o al l ow t he con ti n uous phy s i cal p r e s e n c e c l o c k t o r e s t a r ts u p p o r t s i n t e rp r e t i n g § 1 2 2 9 b t h a tw a y. A fi nal r eas on Men d o za ’s i nt erpr et at i on of § 1229b( d) ( 1) i s i m per m i s s i bl e i s t hat , beca us e of t he s er i ous cons equenc es of d e p o r ta ti o n , ru les o f

sta tu to ryin ter p re tatio n re latin g to i m m i gr at i on s t atut es r equi r e t hatambi gui t i es be cons t r ued i n t he f a v o r o f th e a lie n . See I

N S v. E r r i co , 3 8 5 U

. S

. 2 1 4 , 2 2 5 (19 6 6 ); Fong H aw Tan v. P hel an , 333 U

. S. 6, 10 ( 1948) ( “To constr ue t hi s s t atut or ypr ovi s i on l es s gener ous l yt o t he ali en m i ghtfi nd s uppor ti n l ogi c. B uts i nce the s t akes ar e conside rab l e fort he i ndi vi dual , w e w i l l not as s um e t hat C ongr es s m eant t o t r ench on hi s fr e e d o m b e y o n d t h a t whi c h i s r e q u i r e d b y t h e n a r r o wes tof se v e ra l p o ss ib le m e a n in g s o f th e w o rd s u se d .”); S a wko w v . I NS , 314 F. 2d 34, 37 ( 3d C i r. 1 9 6 3 ) ( “O f cour s e, anydoubti n t he i nt erpr et at i on of t he s t atut e mustbe r es ol ved i n favorof t he a lie n . . . .” ).
C onc l us i on 

### W e r e vi e w the BI A’ s i nt e r pretation of § 1229b( d) ( 1) a c c or di ng t o the s t andar ds s e t forth i n Che v ron . A s th e statute i s s i l e n t o r am b i g u o u s o nth e i s s u e o f

w h e th e r th e c o n t i nuous ph y si ca l pre se nce c lock m ay re st art, we as k w hether

the BIA’s i nt e r pr e t at i on i s ba s e d on ape rm i s s ibl e co n str uc t i on of the statu te

. I n Che v ron , th e S up r e m e C o urt s t at e d th at i f we de t e rm i ne , us i ng the tr a di t i ona l t ool s of s t at ut ory c ons tr uc t i on, that Co ng re ss had an in te n ti ononan is sue of statutory i nt e r pr e t at i on, we m

us t gi ve e ffe c t t o that

i nt e nt i on. Us i ng the tr adit ional t oo ls of

st at utory constru ction, I det er

m ine that C o n g ress i nt en d ed i n § 1229b( d) ( 1) t o al l ow t he 

### c ont i nuous

### phy s i c a lpr e s e nc e c l oc k t o r e s t art a ft e r the comm i s s i onof

a sp ecif iedo f f en se . T hu s, Mend oza’s i nt erpr et at i on of § 1229b( d) ( 1) t o m ean thatt he cl ock ca nnotbe r es ets o t hatan al i en ac crues cont i n u o u s phy s i cal pr es ence aft ert he comm i s s i on of a s peci fi ed off

ens e i s i m per m i s s i bl e. A s s um i ng O keke c om m i t t ed a c ont r ol l ed s ubs t ance o f f e n s e in 1 9 8 3 , 

### he began a new p eriod o f c on ti nu ou s phy si ca l pr e s e nc e on May

5, 1 984—the dat e of hi s m os t r e c e nt adm is si oninto the Unite d S tate s
. 

### Thus , b ec ause Ok eke was c o n t i nu o u s l y phy s i cal l ypr es enti n t he U ni t ed St at es fr om M ay 5, 1984 unt i l he appl i ed f o r cance l l at i on of r emoval m or e t han t en y ear s l at er , he has acc r ued t he r equi r ed t en- y earper i od neces s ar yt o qual i fyforcanc el l at i on of r emoval under 

### § 1229b(b) ( 1)

. I t her efor e conc ur w ith t he r es ul tr eac hed by J u d g e G a rt h

.N Y G A A R D , C i r cui tJ udge, di s s ent i ng. I r es pec t f

u l l yd i s s e n t

. Al t h o u g h I a g r e e wi t h mos tof w h a t th e m a

jo ri ty w ri te s , I r e a c h a d if f e re n t c o n c lu s io n . I bel i eve thatO keke ha s fai l ed t o es t abl i s h t hat h e q u al i fi es for canc el l at i on of r emoval b ec aus e hi s per i od of cont i nuous phy s i cal pr es ence ended w hen he w as convi ct ed of a c ont r ol l ed s u b s t a n c e v i o l a t i o n . Th e r e f o r e , I wo u l d a f

f i r m. A s t he maj or i t ycor r ect l ydes cri b es, t o carr yhi s bur den f o r c a n c e lla tio n o f

r e m o v a l, O k e k e m u s t e s ta b lis h , in ter a lia , bot h cont i nuous phy s i cal p r es ence i n t he U ni t ed St at es fort en y ear s i m m edi at el ypr ece di ng hi s appl icat i on forr el i ef a nd t hat h e h a s n o t b e e n c o n v ic te d o f a n o f f e n s e u n d e r 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 8 2 (a )( 2 ). See 8 U

. S. C

. §§ 1229b( b)( 1) ( A ) , ( C )

. I f an a l i en comm i t s a contr ol l ed s ubs t ance vi ol at i on un d ers ect i on 1 1 8 2 (a )(2 ), h is p e r io d o f c o n tin u o u s p h y sic a l p re se n c e is

“ d e e m e d to e n d .” 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 9 b (d )(1 ). T h e B IA h a s h e ld t hata new per i od of cont i nuous phy s i cal pr es ence m aynot r es tart u n d e r s e c tio n 1 2 2 9 b (d )( 1 ). I n r e Mendoz a- Sandi no , 22 I. & N . D e c . 1 2 3 6 (B IA 2 0 0 0 ). Fol l ow i ng Mendoz a- Sandi no , O keke doe s notqual i fyfor cance l l at i on of rem ov al un der sect i on 12 29 b(b)(1 ). H e fi rs t ent er ed t he U ni t ed St at es i n 1981. H i s per i od of cont i nuous phy s i cal pr es ence ended i n 1983, pur s uantt o s ect i on 1229b( d) ( 1) , w hen he c om m i t t ed a drug offe ns e i n N ew Y or k. U nder t he B I A ’ s hol di ng i n Mendoz a- Sandi no , O keke maynot r es t ar thi s per i od of cont i nuou s p h y s i cal pr es ence beca us e t he p h y sical p rese n ce p eriod en d ed p u rsua n t to secti o n 1 2 2 9 b (d)(1 ). B u t th e re is m o re . In a d d iti o n to th e “ c o m m iss io n ” trig g e r, th e re a lso e x ists a “c onvi ct i on” t r i gger , w hi ch al s o t er m i nat es a per i od of cont i nuous pr es ence . J udge A m br o qui t e corr ect l ys t at es t hat t he ev e n tb a r r i n g a n a l i e n f r o m r e c e i v i n g c a n c e l l a t i o n of r emoval unders ect i on 1229b( b) (1) i s t he convi ct i on , nott hec o m m is s io n , o f a sp e c if ied o f f e n se . I w o u ld h o ld th a t O k e k e is no t e l i g i b l e f

o r c a n c e l l a t i o n o f r e mov a l b e c a u s e h e w as “c o n v ict ed ” o f p o sses sion o f m arij u a n a p u rsua n t t o N ew Y o rk Penal L aw s ect i on 221. 20, w hi ch i s a contr ol l ed s ubs t ance o f f e n s e u n d e r s e c tio n 1 1 8 2 (a )( 2 ).
A convi c t i o n i s e s t a b l i s h e d i f: “ ( i ) a j udge or j ur y has f o u n d th e a lien g u iltyo r th e a lien h a s e n ter e d a p le a o f g u ilty a n d ( i i ) t h e j u d g e h a s o r d e r e d s o m e f o r m o f p u n i s h m e n t , p e n a l t y, o r r e s t r a i n to n t h e a l i e n ’ s l i b e r t yt o b e i m p o s e d

. ” 8 U. S

. C. § 1 1 0 1 (a )(4 8 )(A ). “T h e S tate D e p a rtm e n t h a s in ter p re ted th is to m ean thata convi ct i on w i l l be found i f: ( 1) t her e has been a pl ea o r j u d ici al find ing o f g u il t, an d (2) the co u rth as im p o sed a term o f p ro b a tio n o r s o m e o th e r f o rm o f re s tr a in t o n th e d e f e n d a n t.” I d; s ee, e. g. , P er ez v. E lw ood , 2 9 4 F

. 3 d 5 5 2 , 5 6 2 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 2 ). O keke doe s notdenyt hati n J anuary 1983 he pl eade d gui l t yt o, and t he cour t i m pos ed a t er m of pr obat i on for , pos sess ion of m ar i j uana. T hus a “c onvi ct i on” has been e s t abl i s hed r egar di ng O k e k e ’s p o s s e s s io n o f

m a ri ju a n a . O kek e, ho w ever, argues t hat i ti s not pe rm i ssi ble t o u se an i ndi vi dual ’ s t es t i m onyt o pr ove a c ont es t ed convi ct i on. For t hat pro p o sitio n , he cit es M at t erof P i char do , 21 I

. & N

. D ec. 330 ( B I A 1996) , i n w hi ch t he B I A h el d t hatt he I m m i gr at i on Ju d g e’s reli an ce o n su ch ex tr insic ev iden ce o f re sp o n d en t’ s te s tim o n yw a s im p ro p e r. I d. a t 3 3 4

– 3 5

. P i char do is di s t i ngui s habl e. I n P i char do , t he r es pondentdi d notadmi tt he convi ct i on. I n cont r as t , O k eke ha s t es t i fi ed t hathe “pl eade d gui l t y t o ” a n d was “ s e n t e n c e d t o p r o b a t i o n ” f o r p o s s e s s i o n of m a ri ju a n a , w h ic h m e e ts th e e x a c t d e f i n itio n o f

a “ c o n v ic tio n .” 8 U. S

. C. § 1 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 8 ) ( A)

. “ As t h e p l a i n l a n g u a g e [ o f t h e I NA] in d ic a te s , “ c o n v ic tio n ” in c lu d e s a g u ilty p le a . A m bi ol a v. A sh c ro ft , 3 7 8 F .3 d 1 7 3 , 1 8 1 (2 d C ir. 2 0 0 4 ); s ee North C ar ol i na v. A l f ord , 4 0 0 U .S . 2 5 , 3 7 (1 9 7 0 ).
O keke’ s s w or n t es t i m onyaff i r m at i vel yes t abl i s hed t hat h e h a d b e e n c o n v icte d o f p o ss e ss io n o f m a riju a n a

— a p re d ica teh e c a n n o t n o w d e n y . T h e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls f

o r t h e E lev e n th C i r cui thas hel d that an al i en’ s admi s s i on of a drug convi ct i on underoat h es t abl i s hes the al i en’ s convi ct i on fordepor t at i on p u rp o s e s . See F equ i ere v. A sh c ro ft , 2 7 9 F

. 3 d 1 3 2 5 (11 th C ir

. 2002)

. I w oul d t oo. T he C our t t her e r eas oned t hat t he gover nm entneed notes t abl i s h a drug convi ct i on byone of the s e v e n f o r ms o f p r o o f a r t i c u l a t e d i n 8 U. S

. C. § 12 29 a ( c ) ( 3 ) ( B) b e c a u se th e sta tu te d o e s n o t sta te th a t th e f o rm s o f p ro o f

it l ists cons t i tut e t he s ol e means of est abl i s hi ng a cr i m i nal convi ct i on. Id . at 1 3 2 7 . T h e C o u r t c lar if ied b ysta tin g th a t “th e sta tu te m er el ys ay s t hat s uch for m s ‘ s hal l cons t i t ut e pr oof of a cr i m i nal c o n v ic ti o n ,’” a n d “ [ o ]th e r f o rm s o f p ro o f w ill su f

f ice if

‘ pr obat i ve. ’ ” Id

. O keke pl eade d gui l t yt o pos s es s i on of m ar i j uana a nd w as s ent ence d fort hatoffe ns e. I tfol l ow s t hat O k e k e ’s o w n tes tim o n yo f h is c o n v ictio n a n d se n ten c e is p ro b a tiv e p ro o f

o f a “ c o n v ictio n ” a n d th e re f o re w a s p ro p e rly ta k e n in to c o n s id e ra tio n b yth e B IA

. T he B I A cor r ect l yfound t hatO keke c om m i t t ed and w as c o n v ic te d o f

a n o f f e n s e re f e rr e d to in 8 U .S .C

. § 1 1 8 2 (a )( 2 ). I w oul d hol d t hatt he B I A pr oper l ydeni ed O keke’ s appl i c a t i on for canc el l at i on of r emoval

. H e has notcarr i ed hi s bur den t o s how t he r equi s i t e “c ont i nuous phy s i cal pr es e n c e ” i n t he U ni t ed St at es necessaryt o q uali fyfor cancell at i on of rem ov a l. F o r these r eas ons , I w oul d aff

i r m t he B I A ’ s deni al of O keke’ s Pet i t i on for Re v i e w.