finding that his admission was unlawful without analyzing the elements of the Canadian statute that he was convicted of violating. After careful review, we dismiss the petition in part, and deny it in part. We review whether we have subject matter jurisdiction de novo. Ruiz v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 762, 765 (11th Cir.2007). We review the BIA’s legal determinations de novo. Castillo-Arias v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 446 F.3d 1190, 1195 (11th Cir.2006). “/D/e novo review of the BIA’s interpretation [of the statutes it administers] is informed by the principle of deference articulated in Chevron, U.S.A, Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984).” Id. (quotation omitted); see Quinchia v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 552 F.3d 1255, 1258-59 (11th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). We review only the BIA’s decision unless the
holding that the bia rule is reasonable holding chevron deference is required for a precedential threemember decision of the bia but is not appropriate for a nonprece dential singlemember decision that does not rely on existing bia or federal court precedent holding that an unpublished bia decision that does not rely on precedent for its definition of a contested term does not receive chevron deference because it is not promulgated under the agencys authority to make rules carrying the force of law holding that an earlier precedential decision is binding precedent on later panels holding that we will not review an issue or claim that was not presented to the bia in the petitioners notice of appeal or brief to the bia even if the bia considered the issue or claim sua sponte