that objectively reasonable reliance on pri- or law is sufficient). For these circuits, retroactivity analysis centers on whether the relevant circumstances gave rise to interests upon which it would have been objectively reasonable to rely on the state of prior law, and not on whether actual reliance on prior law has been demonstrated. This analysis “turn[s] on the state of the law” and not on “subjective expectations.” Garcia-Ramirez, 423 F.3d at 944 n. 1. • Abandoning the Supreme Court’s consistent use of objective reliance in the context of retroactivity analysis, the First, Second, and Eleventh Circuits have required that the petitioner demonstrate his own, individual reliance on the availability of § 212(c) relief. See Swaby v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 156, 161-62 (2d Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>); Rankine v. Reno, 319 F.3d 93, 100 (2d
holding that we have jurisdiction to review an aliens legal eligibility for relief under former ina  212c holding that iiriras repeal of ina  212c was not impermissibly retroactive because unlike st cyr the petitioner chose to proceed to trial instead of agreeing to a plea and therefore did not detrimentally rely on the availability of  212c relief holding that an alien may not escape rankines rule by attesting that he relied on the availability of 212c relief in rejecting a plea agreement and deciding to go to trial holding that the relevant date is not when petitioner filed for  212c relief holding that a lawful permanent resident alien is entitled to seek relief under ina  212c