319 F.3d 93, 100 (2d Cir.2003). In Mohammed, we decided that, “at least for purposes of considering the pending motion to lift the stay, ... Domond remains binding authority in this Circuit.” Mohammed, 309 F.3d at 103. And since the Mohammed decision, we have recognized that Domond remains good law. See Rankine, 319 F.3d at 100 (noting that “an alien who committed his crime prior to § 212(c)’s repeal, but was convicted after such relief became unavailable, could not claim an impermissible retroactive effect as to him because he had ‘no basis for claiming similar reliance’ to the alien in St. Cyr [v. INS, 229 F.3d 406 (2d Cir.2000), aff'd, 533 U.S. 289, 121 S.Ct. 2271, 150 L.Ed.2d 347 (2001)]”) (quoting Mohammed, 309 F.3d at 103); Beharry v. Ashcroft, 329 F.3d 51, 63-64 (2d Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>); see also Zgombic, 2003 WL 21243248, at *1
holding that the defendant did not establish good faith as a matter of law recognizing that this court in rankine indicated that domond remains good law recognizing this rule recognizing this method recognizing this presumption