Ponnapula v. Ashcroft, 373 F.3d 480 (3d Cir. June 28, 2004) (Congress did not intend the repeal of INA 212(c) relief to apply retroactively to pre-existing convictions resulting from jury verdicts any more than the Supreme Court held it did to convictions resulting from guilty pleas, if the alien was relying on the old version of the law when he rejected a misdemeanor plea agreement and opted to stand trial).
     In disagreeing with six other circuits on this point (1st, 2nd, 4th, 7th, 9th and 11th), the Third Circuit held the other courts erred by insisting that a noncitizen show "actual reliance" to reap the benefit of the presumption against retroactivity. The Third Circuit stated: "Our disagreement with the courts that have held that IIRIRA's repeal of Section 212(c) relief is not impermissibly retroactive with respect to aliens who went to trial is that those courts have erected too high a barrier to triggering the presumption against retroactivity," Id. at *9. Senior 3rd Circuit Judge Edward R. Becker wrote: "The Supreme Court has never required actual reliance or evidence thereof in the Landgraf line of cases, and has in fact assiduously eschewed an actual reliance requirement." Id. at *10.      Ponnapula turned down a misdemeanor plea agreement and went to trial when 212(c) was still in effect and was convicted of a felony by the jury. Note that this case may be limited to noncitizens who were actually offered plea agreements. Id. at *13.