In Judulang v. Holder, Supreme Court Case No. 10-694, the Court agreed to hear a case about the continued availability of 212(c) relief. The question presented is: Whether a lawful permanent resident who was convicted by guilty plea of an offense that renders him deportable and excludable under differently phrased statutory subsections, but who did not depart and reenter the United States between his conviction and the commencement of removal proceedings, is categorically foreclosed from seeking discretionary relief from removal under former INA 212(c). See Matter of Blake, 23 I&N Dec. 722 (BIA 2005) (deportable lawful permanent residents who had not traveled abroad after their convictions could only seek discretionary relief if the government charged them under a deportation provision in the INA that used similar language to an exclusion provision). The circuits are now split three ways as to the lawfulness of the BIAs new approach. The Second Circuit has correctly rejected the BIAs new position as resting on an irrational distinction. The Ninth Circuit, in a sharply divided en banc decision, ruled that Section 212(c) does not apply to deportable LPRs at all--a position that neither the BIA nor the government has ever endorsed and that directly conflicts with St. Cyr. Eight other circuits have affirmed the BIAs new approach.