Opinion ID: 3049320
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Consistency With the Regulations

Text: Abebe also alleges that the Blake holding is inconsistent with 8 C.F.R. § 1212.3(f) which provides in relevant part, An application for relief under former section 212(c) of the Act shall be denied if ABEBE v. GONZALES 8117 ... (4) The alien [is] removable on the basis of . . . an aggravated felony, except as follows:
tions] were entered pursuant to plea agreements made on or after November 29, 1990, but prior to April 24, 1996, is ineligible for section 212(c) relief only if he or she has served a [five year] . . . term of imprisonment . . . , and
relief on account of an aggravated felony conviction entered pursuant to a plea agreement that was made before November 29, 1990. 8 C.F.R. § 1212.3(f) (2004). [3] Abebe reasons that by specifying that an alien who pleaded guilty between November 29, 1990 and April 24, 1996 is ineligible only if he has served five years, subsection (f)(4)(i) implies that an alien in a similar situation but who served less than five years is eligible for relief. Abebe misreads the regulation. On a much more plausible reading, an alien who pleaded guilty during this time frame is stripped of § 212(c) eligibility by the workings of 8 C.F.R. § 1212.3(f)(4) only if he also served a five-year term. If an alien was ineligible for some other reason (say because he was not an LPR (8 C.F.R. § 1212.3(f)(1)) or was deportable on a ground lacking a comparable ground of exclusion (8 C.F.R. § 1212.3(f)(5)), then it would make no difference whether or not he served five years. [4] Abebe’s argument that Blake conflicts with 8 C.F.R. § 1212(f)(4)(ii) is similarly unpersuasive. That provision was added in response to this court’s decision in Toia v. Fasano, 334 F.3d 917 (9th Cir. 2003), which held that IMMACT 90’s 8118 ABEBE v. GONZALES amendment to § 212(c) (stripping eligibility from aggravated felons who served five years) could not be applied retroactively to aliens who pleaded guilty prior to its enactment. 69 Fed. Reg. 57830-31 (September 28, 2004). The Department of Justice acquiesced in the result of Toia and promulgated subsection (f)(4)(ii) to make clear that such an alien would not be stripped of eligibility as a result of IMMACT 90’s amendment. Id. The regulation in no way provides affirmative entitlement to relief to an alien who would have been ineligible for some other reason (for instance, if the ground of removability charged lacked a comparable ground of inadmissibility).