INA. See Matter of Torres, 19 I. & N. Dec. 371, 373 (BIA 1986). We agree that Fier-an was not eligible for suspension of de portation under the old INA, see Leng May Ma, 357 U.S. at 188, 78 S.Ct. 1072, but that does not answer the question of whether or not the new statute applies to Fieran. The effective date of the IIRIRA was April 1,1997, and the statute is generally prospective: “[s]ubject to the succeeding provisions of this subsection, in the case of an alien who is in exclusion or deportation proceedings before the title III A effective date [April 1, 1997] — ... the amendments made by this subtitle shall not applyf.]” IIRIRA § 309(c)(1); see also IIRIRA § 309(a) (effective date). There are nevertheless several rules labeled “transitional rules” or, in our case, a “spe Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); see also 143 Cong. Rec. S12,-265-01, S12,266
holding that iiriras effective date is april 1 1997 holding that the procedural aspects of iirira  309c apply only to ongoing exclusion or deportation proceedings and are irrelevant in cases involving aliens whose orders of deportation or exclusion were final on the effective date holding that an iirira provision on reinstatement of orders of removal did not apply to aliens who reentered prior to the iiriras effective date holding that court of appeals statutory jurisdiction over final orders of removal extends to reinstatement orders holding that the substantive defenses to removal eliminated by 8 usc  1231a5  may not be retroactively denied to aliens who illegally reentered prior to enactment