The recent U.S. Supreme Court case, Vartelas v. Holder, includes language helpful in overcoming the quid quo pro argument that a noncitizen convicted by jury trial is ineligible for relief under former INA 212(c):

As the Government acknowledges, th[is] Court has not required a party challenging the application of a statute to show [he relied on prior law] in structuring his conduct. Brief for Respondent 25"26. In Landgraf, for example, the issue was the retroactivity of compensatory and punitive damages as remedies for employment discrimination. [C]oncerns of . . . upsetting expectations are attenuated in the case of intentional employment discrimination, the Court noted, for such discrimination has been unlawful for more than a generation. 511 U. S., at 282, n. 35. But [e]ven when the conduct in question is morally reprehensible or illegal, the Court added, a degree of unfairness is inherent whenever the law imposes additional burdens based on conduct that occurred in the past. Id., at 283, n. 35. And in Hughes Aircraft, the Court found that Congress 1986 removal of a defense to a qui tam action did not apply to pre-1986 conduct in light of the presumption against retroactivity. 520 U. S., at 941"942.FN8 As in Landgraf, the relevant conduct (submitting a false claim) had been unlawful for decades. See 520 U. S., at 947.

Vartelas v. Holder, 132 S.Ct. 1479, 1490-91 (Mar. 28, 2012).