deference.” Reno v. Koray, 515 U.S. 50, 61, 115 S.Ct. 2021, 132 L.Ed.2d 46 (1995) (BOP’s program statements are not subject to APA entitling them, therefore, only to some deference). Where a statute does not define a term, the BOP has broad discretion to adopt any reasonable definition. However, that discretion does not immunize the BOP decision from judicial review. Davis v. Crabtree, 109 F.3d 566, 568 (9th Cir.1997), citing Downey v. Crabtree, 100 F.3d 662, 666 (9th Cir.1996). A court may review allegations that an agency: (1) has violated the constitution, Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592, 603-604, 108 S.Ct. 2047, 100 L.Ed.2d 632 (1988); or (2) has interpreted a statute contrary to well-settled ease law, Neal v. United States, 516 U.S. 284, 294, 116 S.Ct. 763, 133 L.Ed.2d 709 (1996) (<HOLDING>). II. ANALYSIS This case presents the issue of
holding that stare decisis required the court to adhere to a prior statutory interpretation despite the agencys subsequent interpretation of the statute contrary to the settled law holding that stare decisis is not applicable unless the issue was squarely addressed in a prior decision holding an administrative interpretation cannot change the meaning of a statute or control the courts interpretation of it recognizing that deference to an agencys interpretation of the written law is appropriate only when that interpretation is within the written laws language holding that bias interpretation of immigration law is entitled to deference except where the interpretation is clearly contrary to the plain and sensible meaning of the statute