Opinion ID: 771275
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Petitioner's Statutory Claims

Text: 15 As noted above, the Board of Immigration Appeals applied the stop time provision to Ms. Ashki's case. The Board concluded that since she had only been in the United States for a little over two years when a order to show cause was issued against her she had not fulfilled the seven-year residence requirement of § 244 and was not eligible for suspension of deportation. 16 Ms. Ashki contends that the stop time provision should not be applied in her case because the literal language of IIRIRA's original transitional rules, section 309(c)(5), states that the stop time provision in INA section 240A shall apply to notices to appear. Ashki argues that since she was served with a order to show cause and not a notice to appear this stop time provision does not reach her and that she istherefore eligible for the suspension of deportation. 17 Although Ms. Ashki's construction of the transitional rules may have been plausible prior to the passage of NACARA, that act has foreclosed this interpretation. As noted above, NACARA amended IIRIRA's transitional rules. In doing so, Congress clearly indicated that the new stop time provision applies retroactively to orders to show cause. Accordingly, the Board of Immigration Appeals did not err in applying the stop time provision to Ms. Ashki's case.