The Board, to be sure, did not highlight the statute's gaps or ambiguity; rather, it read §1229b(a)'s text to support its conclusion that each alien must personally meet that section's durational requirements. But the Board also explained that "there [was] no precedent" in its decisions for imputing status or residence, and distinguished those statutory terms, on the ground just explained, from domicile or abandonment of [lawful permanent resident] status. And the Board argued that allowing imputation under §1229b(a) would create anomalies in administration of the statutory scheme by permitting even those who had not obtained [lawful permanent resident] status—or could not do so because of a criminal history—to become eligible for cancellation of removal. The Board therefore saw neither a "logical" nor a "legal" basis for adopting a policy of imputation. We see nothing in this decision to suggest that the Board thought its hands tied, or that it might have reached a different result if assured it could do so.

The Supreme Court granted certiorari in the case in September and heard oral arguments [JURIST reports] in January. In April, the court heard oral arguments [JURIST report] in Arizona v. United States to determine whether Arizona's controversial immigration [JURIST backgrounder] law is preempted by federal law.