Navarro

BACKGROUND

Because this case requires us to interpret the Barahona- Gomez settlement and to determine whether the Navarros qualify for its benefits, we begin with a discussion of the events that gave rise to the settlement followed by a discus- sion of the settlement itself. 1 While we refer to Barahona-Gomez v. Ashcroft as “Barahona-Gomez II,” we refer to the settlement therein as the Barahona-Gomez settlement. 1988 NAVARRO v. MUKASEY

I. The History of the Barahona-Gomez Settlement

Before IIRIRA took effect on April 1, 1997, an alien against whom deportation proceedings had been commenced could apply for suspension of deportation, if, among other things, she had been continuously physically present in the United States for seven years. See Jimenez-Angeles v. Ash- croft, 291 F.3d 594, 597 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1254 (repealed 1997)). Under the pre-IIRIRA statutory regime, an alien in deportation proceedings continued to accrue time toward satisfying the seven-year residency requirement during the pendency of her immigration proceed- ings. See id. at 598. The pre-IIRIRA regime set no limit on the number of applications for suspension of deportation…