rule.” The transitional rules are explicit about their application; one on residency qualifications applies, for example, to orders to show cause “issued before, on, or after the date of the enactment of this act.” IIRIRA § 309(c)(5)(A). Fieran invokes a rule captioned “special rule for cancellation of removal.” IIRIRA § 309(f). This rule does not say that it applies to orders issued before the enactment date. Congress’s failure to include language applying § 309(f) to cases initiated prior to the IIRIRA’s enactment, and Congress’s express application of several other IIRIRA provisions to pre-enactment behavior, lead us to conclude that Congress intended § 309(f) to apply to aliens whose orders of removal were entered after the IIRIRA. See Sherifi v. INS, 260 F.3d 737 (7th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); Castro-Cortez v. INS, 239 F.3d 1037, 1052
holding that the procedural aspects of iirira  309c apply only to ongoing exclusion or deportation proceedings and are irrelevant in cases involving aliens whose orders of deportation or exclusion were final on the effective date holding that being placed in removal proceedings rather than deportation proceedings does not violate a petitioners due process rights holding that alien demonstrated deportation proceedings were fundamentally unfair when alien was deprived effective assistance of counsel holding that the statute does not apply retroactively to claims accruing prior to the effective date holding that nacara suspension of deportation does not apply to an alien placed in exclusion proceedings before the effective date of the law