from 212(c) relief. I would be so inclined, that is, were it not for the fact that I am unconvinced by the dissent's ingenious interpretation of Domond v. U.S. INS, 244 F.3d 81 (2d Cir.2001), and Rankine, 319 F.3d 93. Instead, I read those cases as foreclosing the argument that the conviction of an alien, without more, presents a retroactivity problem. 7 . Moreover, as the tribunals below recognized, even if the IIRIRA and the AEDPA do not apply to Petitioner, the five-year bar would independently preclude him from seeking 212(c) relief. In Buitrago-Cuesta v. INS, 7 F.3d 291, 292 (2d Cir.1993), this court held that the five-year bar applies retroactively to aliens who were convicted before Congress established that bar in 1990. Petitioner maintains, however, that (11th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). 10 . Although Petitioner is unclear on this
holding that all data necessary to show probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant must be contained within the four corners of the affidavit holding that issuance of an order to show cause satisfied this requirement holding that for purposes of the iirira proceedings commence only upon the inss filing of a notice to appear with the immigration court holding in the iirira context that service of the notice to appear was on the facts of that case sufficient to start proceedings holding in the iirira context that the combination of service of the order to show cause and the issuance of a detainer notice sufficed to begin the proceedings