§ 1229c(b)(1)(B) (requiring an alien who obtains voluntary departure at the conclusion of removal proceedings to demonstrate “good moral character”). This is particularly so when the plain text of the statute reveals no such limitation. See Costello v. INS, 376 U. S. 120, 127-128 (1964) (counseling long hesitation “before adopting a construction of [the statute] which would, with respect to an entire class of aliens, completely nullify a pro cedure so intrinsic a part of the legislative scheme”); see also Stone v. INS, 514 U. S. 386, 399 (1995) (“Congress might not have wished to impose on the alien” the difficult choice created by treating a motion to reopen as rendering the underlying order nonfinal for purposes of judicial review); INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U. S. 289, 320 (2001) (<HOLDING>). IV A It is necessary, then, to read the Act
recognizing principle recognizing  the longstanding principle of construing any lingering ambiguities in deportation statutes in favor of the alien  quoting ins v cardozafonseca 480 u s 421 449 1987 recognizing risks in construing statutes of limitations in favor of repose holding that habeas review is  for any alien held in custody pursuant to an order of deportation recognizing same principle