the purposes of [statutory] retroactivity analysis, between facing possible deportation and facing certain deportation.” St. Cyr, 533 U.S. at 325, 121 S.Ct. 2271. In conclusion, aliens’ reliance on Lujan-Armendariz is not diminished because of some outside chance that they would not receive its benefit. 7 . Judge Ikuta argues that, if we are correct about the Chevron Oil factors concerning Lujan-Armendariz, then we also must overrule Rice prospectively only. Partial dissent at 701 & n.6. We disagree. Unlike with respect to Lujan-Armendariz, the Chevron Oil factors do not support a finding of prospectivity with respect to Rice. The parties and amici have presented no evidence that litigants have relied on our very recent decision in Rice. See Chevron Oil, 404 U.S. at 106, 92 S.Ct. 349 (<HOLDING>). This petitioner certainly did not rely on
holding that prospectivity is appropriate where we overrule past precedent on which litigants may have relied holding that we do not address an argument raised for the first time in a litigants reply brief holding we may affirm on any grounds supported by the record even those not relied upon by the district court holding that on questions of law we adopt rule that is most persuasive in light of precedent reason and policy holding that threejudge panel cannot disregard or overrule circuit precedent