In Judulang, the Court rejected a rule that categorically excluded a group of deportable
LPRs on grounds that bore no relationship to the aliens fitness to remain in the country. Judulang v. Holder, 565 U.S. """", """", 132 S.Ct. 476, 485, 181 L.Ed.2d 449 (2011). Op. at 12. Categorical exclusion of trial conviction cases also bears no relationship to fitness to remain. Indeed, the agency has never claimed that it bore such a relationship. Instead, trial conviction cases have been excluded from relief on the ground that St. Cyr does not require that they be included. See, e.g., Canto v. Holder, 593 F.3d 638 (7th Cir. 2010). That logic is almost identical to the logic that led to the Blake decision. The agency had been ordered by a court to provide 212(c) to some deportable immigrants and did not extend 212(c) to others whom it deemed not covered by St. Cyr. But as the Court found in Judulang, agency practice cannot allow for distinctions that are arbitrary just because they grew out of an accommodation of case law. Instead, access to a critical form of relief must be based on a connection to the broader purpose of the statute and fitness to remain. Moreover, just as the comparable grounds test lacked any connection to the text of the statute, the exclusion of trial convictions finds no basis whatsoever in the wording of 212(c).