Moreover, the BIA has interpreted the "no record" requirement to apply to aliens who entered the United States after 1924. See Matter of M-P, 9 I & N Dec. 747, 1962 WL 12890 (BIA 1962)(alien who entered the country in 1925 and for whom there is a record of admission is not eligible for relief under the Registry Statute). We "defer to the BIA's interpretation of immigration laws unless the interpretation is `demonstrably irrational or clearly contrary to the plain and sensible meaning of the statute.'" United States v. Estrada-Torres, 179 F.3d 776, 779 (9th Cir.1999) (quoting Bui v. INS, 76 F.3d 268, 269-70 (9th Cir.1996)). The BIA's construction is not demonstrably irrational. Its interpretation is consistent with the holding of Mrvica, that the registry is a remedial device to create a record of entry where none exists, as well as with the legislative history. The Report of the Senate Committee on Immigration makes clear that the Registry Statute's purpose was to "authorize[ ] the Commissioner of Naturalization to issue new naturalization papers where they have become lost, mutilated, or destroyed." S.Rep. No. 70-1504 at 5 (1929).

Accordingly, we find that the district court did not err when it concluded that relief under the Registry Statute is only available to aliens who do not have a record of entry. Because Angulo-Dominguez cannot satisfy this "no record" requirement, he is ineligible for relief under this statute.

B. Controlled Substance Violations.

In addition, Angulo-Dominguez does not meet the Registry Statute's conditions for eligibility. The statute provides that an alien is ineligible for registry, inter alia, if he is inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a) because of a conviction for a violation relating to a controlled substance offense.

Angulo-Dominguez's three marijuana convictions are controlled substance offenses as defined in 21 U.S.C. § 802 and, therefore, he is inadmissible under § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i). In addition, § 1182(a)(2)(B) provides that any alien convicted of multiple offenses for which the aggregate sentences of confinement were five years or more is inadmissible. Angulo-Dominguez's aggregate sentences on his three convictions totaled ten years, six months and thirty-two days and, therefore, he is inadmissible under § 1182(a)(2)(B).

C. Equal Protection Challenge.

Angulo-Dominguez next argues that the denial of relief under the Registry Statute to an alien who has a record of entry, while allowing such relief to an alien who does not have a record of entry, violates equal protection. Classifications involving aliens are subject to only a "rational basis" equal protection analysis. Tapia-Acuna v. INS, 640 F.2d 223, 225 (9th Cir.1981). We find the statutory scheme Congress created in enacting the Registry Statute meets the rational basis test.

The rationality of creating a special registry for those with no record of entry, but denying the same for those who entered the country legally, is manifestly apparent. One who entered legally has an actual record of admission; there is no need to create one. A lawful permanent resident already has the benefit the registry statute was designed to confer on those who did not enter legally, but have long-standing residence: a record of the alien's lawful entry. This provides the legitimate governmental purpose to support the enactment's constitutionality.

Last term, the Supreme Court issued its landmark ruling regarding the retroactive application of the provisions of AEDPA and IIRIRA that repealed discretionary relief from deportation under former INA § 212(c). St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 121 S. Ct. 2271, 150 L. Ed. 2d 347. The Court held that "§ 212(c) relief remains available for aliens ... whose convictions were obtained through plea agreements and who, notwithstanding those convictions, would have been eligible for § 212(c) relief at the time of their plea under the law then in effect." Id. at 326, 121 S. Ct. 2271. As the Court noted, the preservation of § 212(c) relief is a particularly important defense to removal because 90% of convictions are through guilty pleas, see id. at 324 n. 51, 121 S. Ct. 2271, and, in the past, more than 50% of the applications for § 212(c) relief were granted, id. at 296 n. 5, 121 S. Ct. 2271. The Court also noted in St. Cyr that "the judgment whether a particular statute acts retroactively should be informed and guided by familiar considerations of fair notice, reasonable reliance, and settled expectations." Id. at 321, 121 S. Ct. 2271 (internal quotations and citations omitted). We ordered supplemental briefing to determine the effect of St. Cyr on Angulo-Dominguez's habeas petition.

St. Cyr concerned the retroactive application of AEDPA and IIRIRA, the 1996 laws which expanded the category of aliens who could be deported, and repealed § 212(c). This case concerns the retroactive application of the Immigration Act of 1990 ("IMMACT"), which amended former § 212(c) to provide that "an alien who has been convicted of an aggravated felony and has served a term of imprisonment of at least 5 years" shall not be eligible for a discretionary waiver under § 212(c). Pub.L. No. 101-649, § 511(a), 104 Stat. 4978, 5052. Both St. Cyr and the case at issue, however, concern eligibility for relief pursuant to § 212(c) where the conviction at issue predates the disqualifying enactment.

In St. Cyr, the Court applied the Landgraf factors and held that the retroactive application of AEDPA and IIRIRA was improper because: (1) Congress failed to direct with requisite clarity that the law applied retroactively; and (2) such an application would have a genuine retroactive effect, i.e., it attaches a new disability to an alien who entered a guilty plea with the expectation that he would be eligible for § 212(c) relief. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. at 314-25, 121 S. Ct. 2271 (citing Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 114 S. Ct. 1483, 128 L. Ed. 2d 229 (1994)).

Angulo-Dominguez would have been eligible for § 212(c) relief when he entered his guilty plea in 1990. Under the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, Pub.L. No. 100-69, 102 Stat. 4181, 4469-73 §§ 7342-50 (1988), as amended by IMMACT § 501(a)(2), Angulo-Dominguez's conviction for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute renders him deportable and, thus, in need of § 212(c) relief. Former § 212(c) gave the Attorney General discretion to waive the deportation of certain deportable lawful permanent resident aliens. INA § 212(c), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (repealed 1996). Prior to the enactment of IMMACT, an alien was eligible for § 212(c) relief if the alien was: (1) presently a lawful permanent resident of the United States and (2) had accrued seven consecutive years of lawful unrelinquished domicile in the United States.3 See Avila-Murrieta v. INS, 762 F.2d 733, 734 (9th Cir.1985) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c)). Angulo-Dominguez entered the United States in 1967 as a lawful permanent resident. Angulo-Dominguez was one month old when he entered the United States with his parents and has lived continuously in the United States since his lawful entry. Thus, Angulo-Dominguez would have been eligible for discretionary relief at the time he entered his guilty plea in 1990. With that in mind, a determination is required whether the application of IMMACT to Angulo-Dominguez has an impermissibly retroactive effect. Because the district court's ruling was rendered in the absence of the guidance set forth in St. Cyr, it is appropriate to remand this case for the district court, in the first instance, to determine the effect, if any, St. Cyr has on this matter. See Wyatt v. Terhune, 280 F.3d 1238, 1244 (9th Cir.2002) (recognizing that remand to the district court is appropriate in light of a new case that is "likely to influence the decision.")

AFFIRMED in part, and REMANDED in part.