matter should be reopened because his first attorney rendered ineffective assistance of counsel. Kirlew also sought reconsideration of the BIA’s previous decision because he claimed that it “failed to articulate any legal standard, statutory, case law or regulation in support of its legal conclusion” (A.R. 7) (emphasis in original) and improperly discounted his claims of bias regarding the IJ. Because the BIA properly affirmed the IJ’s denial of recusal, we will affirm the BIA’s decision not to reopen the matter on that ground. Furthermore, while the record validates Kirlew’s claim that his Marijuana Conviction was subsequently vacated, he would still be unable to obtain Section 212(c) relief because of the Firearms Conviction. See Caroleo v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 158, 165 (3d Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>) (citing Komarenko v. INS, 35 F.3d 432 (9th
holding that section 212c relief is unavailable to a lawful permanent resident convicted of a firearms offense qualifying under 8 usc  1227a2c holding that adjustment of status was permitted even if deportable alien had entered the country as a lawful permanent resident holding that the relevant date is not when petitioner filed for  212c relief holding that a lawful permanent resident alien is entitled to seek relief under ina  212c holding that an alien is only lawfully admitted for permanent residence for purposes of the ina if his or her adjustment to lawful permanent resident complied with substantive legal requirements and that because the alien failed to show that she had complied with the relevant substantive legal requirements the ij correctly determined that she had not been lawfully admitted for permanent residence and was not entitled to  212c relief