CA4 on Retroactivity, Stop-Time Rule: Jaghoori v. Holder

"When Petitioner pled guilty to credit card theft in 1995, his conviction did not foreclose his opportunity to qualify for discretionary relief. Petitioner continued to accrue the seven years of unrelinquished domicile necessary for a section 212(c) waiver and the seven years of continuous physical presence necessary for suspension of deportation. Indeed, by the time Congress enacted IIRIRA in September 1996, Petitioner had been living in the United States long enough to qualify for both forms of relief. A retroactive application of the stop-time rule would not merely imperil Petitioner’s opportunity to seek permanent relief from removal; it would render such relief an impossibility. Absent a clear congressional directive, we cannot assume that Congress intended the rule to have this effect. ... A lawful resident who has lived in the United States long enough to merit consideration for relief from removal has a settled expectation in his opportunity to request such relief. Courts may not disturb that expectation absent clear evidence that Congress intended that effect. For the foregoing reasons, we grant the petition for review and remand the case to the BIA for proceedings consistent with this opinion." - Jaghoori v. Holder, Nov. 18, 2014.  [Hats off to Ivan Yacub!]