or the circuit of his residence. 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a)(2). Morel’s residence prior to his arrest was in Paterson, New Jersey, and apparently he returned to his home in New Jersey following his release from INS custody. The INS nonetheless suggests that this court should review the reasonableness of the BIA’s decision in light of Fifth Circuit law, because that was the jurisdiction in which the case arose. While it may be anomalous that there could be differing circuit law governing a federal agency’s application of a uniformly applicable federal statute where two circuits have potential connection with the case, all of the other appellate courts confronted with a similar situation have applied the law of their own circuits. See Rosendo-Ramirez v. INS, 32 F.3d 1085, 1091-94 (7th Cir.1994)(<HOLDING>); Maldonado-Cruz v. Dept. of Imm. &
holding that in cases of a false conflict of law a court may apply the law of the forum state holding that lack of standing cannot be waived and may be raised for the first time by an appellate court on its own motion holding that federal courts presiding over causes of action created by state law should apply state substantive law but federal procedural law holding that lack of justiciable interest resulted in lack of standing to pursue claim and that lack of standing deprived the trial court of jurisdiction to act holding court was obliged to apply its own law despite problems created by lack of uniformity in application of immigration laws