that the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) wrongfully found him statutorily ineligible for discretionary relief from deportation under former § 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c). Reviewing the record de novo and giving deference to the BIA’s permissible interpretations, see INS v. Aguirre-Aguirre, 526 U.S. 415, 424, 119 S.Ct. 1439, 143 L.Ed.2d 590 (1999), we affirm for the following reasons: 1. Former § 212(c) limits eligibility for discretionary relief to “aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence.” See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c). Where permanent residency status is obtained by false pretenses the “legally admitted for permanent resident” requirement of former § 212(c) is not met. See, e.g., Matter of Longstaff, 716 F.2d 1439, 1441 (5th Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>); Rodriguez v. Ashcroft, 58 Fed.Appx. 596, 2003
holding that admission is not lawful if it is regular only in form the term lawfully denotes compliance with substantive legal requirements not mere procedural regularity holding that when a term is not defined in a contract the presumption is that the term is to be given its ordinary meaning and significance holding that statement within expert report is not a judicial admission but is instead an admission by party holding that it is not holding that standard of review is a matter of procedural rather than substantive law