of the Rosases’ applications for cancellation of removal. PETITION GRANTED AND REMANDED. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. RYMER, Judge, dissenting. I would deny the petition because the Rosases used 72-hour border passes to transport their non-citizen children across the border with the preconceived intent to settle them here permanently. This was an illegal use of the pass, and I cannot say that the Immigration Judge’s determina tion that the Rosases thereby knowingly assisted another alien to enter or try to enter the United States in violation of law is plainly contrary to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(E). Chowdhury v. INS, 249 F.3d 970, 972 (9th Cir.2001)
holding that sec interpretation of federal securities law is entitled to deference if it is reasonable holding that an agencys interpretation of its own regulations is entitled to deference holding that bias interpretation of immigration law is entitled to deference except where the interpretation is clearly contrary to the plain and sensible meaning of the statute holding an administrative interpretation cannot change the meaning of a statute or control the courts interpretation of it holding that agency interpretation which is reasonable is entitled to deference