See Matter of Arreguin, 21 I. & N. Dec. 38  (BIA 1995) (establishing standard for significance of dismissed charges in discretionary decision); Billeke-Tolosa v. Ashcroft, 385 F.3d 708 (6th Cir. Sep. 30, 2004) (reversing BIA's failure to follow its case law on significance of dismissed charges in discretionary decision); Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 345 F.3d 824, 846 (9th Cir. 2003) (requiring BIA to follow its own precedent). But see Matter of Thomas, 20 I. & N, Dec. 20, 23-24 (BIA 1995) (citing several circuits allowing consideration of arrest that did not culminate in convictions.      In passing IIRIRA 309, Congress included a safety-net provision for aliens rendered ineligible for suspension of deportation because of the retroactive stop-time rule. Section 309(c)(3) of IIRIRA authorizes the Attorney General to provide such aliens an opportunity to apply for a new form of relief enacted in IIRIRA, Cancellation of Removal. After the Alcarazes filed their briefs with the BIA, but before the Alcarazes appeal was heard by the BIA, the Attorney General, through a series of policy directives, implemented her power pursuant to IIRIRA 309(c)(3). Specifically, the Immigration and Naturalization Service ("INS") and the Executive Office of Immigration Review ("EOIR"), both under the Department of Justice, issued policy directives instructing the BIA to administratively close the cases of all eligible aliens who qualified for suspension of deportation but for the new stop-time rule. The cases of qualifying aliens were administratively closed to allow the aliens to reapply for cancellation of removal. The INS called this process "repapering."