proceedings have been initiated.”); see also Delegation of Authority to the Immigration and Naturalization Service to Terminate Deportation Proceedings and Initiate Removal Proceedings, 65 Fed.Reg. 71273, 71274 (proposed Nov. 30, 2000) (describing the administrative “repapering” procedure whereby aliens in deportation proceedings rendered ineligible for suspension of deportation by virtue of IIRIRA’s retroactive stop-time rule could seek termination of deportation proceedings and initiation of removal proceedings in order to apply for cancellation of removal). Instead, Zhisong was required to seek suspension of deportation under 8 U.S.C. § 1254(a)(1) (repealed in 1996 with the enactment of IIRIRA), but failed to do so. See Arenas-Yepes v. Gonzales, 421 F.3d 111, 116-17 (2d Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). For the foregoing reasons, the petition for
holding that because petitioners proceedings commenced after the enactment of iirira petitioner was statutorily ineligible for suspension of deportation holding that being placed in removal proceedings rather than deportation proceedings does not violate a petitioners due process rights recognizing that aliens whose proceedings are commenced with a notice to appear on or after april 1 1997 are subject to removal proceedings under iirira while aliens whose proceedings were commenced with an order to show cause before april 1 1997 were subject to deportation proceedings under prior law holding that attorneys admission to an element of the offense in the petitioners presence at a deportation hearing was binding on the petitioners holding that the new stoptime rule applies to all aliens applying for either suspension of deportation under the old law or cancellation of removal under the iirira amendments