Castillo-Felix petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order denying him discretionary relief from deportation under § 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (c) (1976). He asserts that the Board incorrectly interpreted the statutory phrase “lawful unrelinquished domicile.” We affirm.

FACTS

Petitioner, a citizen and native of Mexico, illegally entered this country in 1963. Shortly thereafter, he commenced a common law relationship with a woman alien who had been admitted for permanent residence. 1 They now have five children, all born in the United States.

Petitioner was apprehended by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) in November, 1969, and was given leave to depart voluntarily, at government expense, in lieu of deportation. 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (g) (1976). He left the country for one day, then illegally returned.

In October 1970, petitioner married his common law wife. He was apprehended the same year and again was granted voluntary departure, this time at his own expense. He remained in this country, however, because the INS proceeded to grant him a series of extensions of his voluntary departure date pending his receipt of a permanent resident visa. The visa was granted and he lawfully entered this country on April 7, 1972.

In August of 1975, petitioner was convict-' ed of knowingly inducing the entry of two illegal aliens into the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1324 (a)(4) (1976). 2 He began serving two consecutive three-year terms 3 and the INS commenced deportation proceedings.

In those proceedings, petitioner conceded deportability but applied for discretionary relief under § 1182(c). In June of 1977, the Immigration Judge denied the requested relief because petitioner had not been continuously domiciled in this country for seven years subsequent to his admission for permanent residence in 1972. The judge added that, even if petitioner had met the domicile requirement, he would exercise his discretion to deny relief. 4

The BIA affirmed the judge’s decision on the statutory ineligibility ground alone. It *462 declined to address whether the Immigration Judge could have properly exercised his discretion to deny relief.

DISCUSSION

Aliens who seek admission may be excluded if they fall within any of the categories enumerated in 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (a). Section 1182(c) waives the exclusion provisions for certain aliens with established roots in this country. It provides in pertinent part:

8 U.S.C. § 1182 (c) (1976). Although originally applicable only to exclusion proceedings, § 1182(c) has been extended to deportation proceedings when deportees meet the requirements of the statute. 5

According to the literal language of this provision, it applies only to aliens who are (1) “lawfully admitted for permanent residence,” (2) returning to a “lawful unrelin-quished domicile of seven consecutive years,” and who (3) “temporarily proceeded abroad voluntarily and not under an order of deportation.”

Petitioner concededly meets the first requirement. He was lawfully admitted for permanent residence in 1972. The third requirement, actual departure, was not addressed below, and we cannot reach it here. 6 The BIA found petitioner ineligible for relief because he failed to meet the second requirement, returning to a lawful unrelinquished domicile of seven consecutive years.

LAWFUL UNRELINQUISHED DOMICILE:

The INS maintains that an alien cannot be lawfully domiciled in this country unless *463 “lawfully admitted for permanent residence.” It has consistently applied § 1182(c) only to aliens domiciled in this country for seven or more years after their admission for permanent residence. Matter of Anwo, Interim Decision # 2604 (BIA 1977), affirmed sub nom. Anwo v. INS, No. 77-1879 (D.C.Cir. June 19,1979); 7 Matter of S, 5 I&N Dec. 116 (BIA 1953).

Petitioner argues that aliens may be lawfully domiciled in this country without having been admitted for permanent residence. In his view, because admission for permanent residence is separate from the lawful domicile requirement, aliens who have lived here lawfully for seven or more consecutive years can obtain § 1182(c) relief, regardless of when they were admitted for permanent residence.

He relies primarily on Lok v. INS, 548 F.2d 37 (2d Cir. 1977), in which the Second Circuit rejected the INS interpretation of § 1182(c). The INS argues that Lok was wrongly decided.

The Lok court first examined the language of § 1182(c). It noted that “admission for permanent residence” is carefully defined, 8 but “lawful unrelinquished domicile” is not defined anywhere in the Act. It also noted that some nonimmigrant aliens may be lawfully domiciled in this country without having been admitted for permanent residence. From these facts, it reasoned that lawful domicile could not be equated with admission for permanent residence.

The court then examined the legislative history of § 1182(c), which is an amended version of the 7th Proviso to § 3 of the Immigration Act of 1917. That Proviso reads:

Act of Feb. 5,1917, ch. 29, § 3, 39 Stat. 878 .

The 7th Proviso gave the Secretary virtually unfettered discretion to grant relief to long-time resident aliens returning to the United States after a temporary absence. In the amended version, § 1182(c), Congress clearly limited that discretion by adding new requirements: that the aliens be (1) lawfully admitted for permanent residence, and (2) returning to a lawful unrelinquished domicile of seven consecutive years.

The Lok court concluded that Congress did not intend the seven years of lawful domicile to follow admission for permanent residence. The court noted that the Senate Judiciary Committee apparently rejected a version of § 1182(c) which would have explicitly required accumulation of the seven years of domicile after admission for permanent residence. 9 It also pointed to other *464 provisions of the act in which Congress clearly expressed its intention that a period of domicile follow admission for permanent residence, e.g., 8 U.S.C. §§ 1427 (a)(1), 1430(a) (1976), and reasoned that Congress would have done so here, had it intended that result.

The Lok court acknowledged that interpretations of an Act by the agency responsible for administering it are usually accorded great deference, citing Udall v. Tallman, 380 U.S. 1, 16 , 85 S.Ct. 792 , 13 L.Ed.2d 616 (1965). Nevertheless, it reversed the agency, impelled by a

548 F.2d at 40 . We cannot agree that the INS interpretation of § 1182(c) is “inconsistent with a statutory mandate or . frustrate^] the congressional policy” behind this legislation.

The statutory mandate in § 1182(c) is ambiguous. The language of the section could support either the INS interpretation or that adopted in Lok . The fact that the phrase “lawfully admitted for permanent residence” is carefully defined elsewhere in the act does not negate the possibility that Congress intended to establish permanent resident status as the prerequisite for “lawful” domicile.

Similarly, the fact that a small group of nonimmigrants could conceivably qualify as “lawfully” domiciled within this country without acquiring permanent resident status does not persuade us that “lawful” should be defined without reference to the phrase “lawfully admitted for permanent residence.”

We emphasize first that most non-immigrants must have a residence in a foreign country which they do not intend to abandon, or must be here for a temporary purpose, or both. 10 To establish domicile, 11 aliens must not only be physically present here, but must intend to remain. If aliens are here for a temporary purpose, they cannot establish domicile. Conversely, if they intend to stay, they violate the terms of their admission and are no longer here lawfully. See Anwo v. INS, No. 77-1879, slip op. at 6-7 and n.8 (D.C.Cir. June 19, 1979), quoting Elkins v. Moreno, 435 U.S. 647 , 98 S.Ct. 1338, 1349 , 55 L.Ed.2d 614 (1978).

The INS concedes that a small group of nonimmigrants including diplomats, foreign government representatives and their retinues, treaty traders, and media representatives, 12 are not required to maintain a foreign residence, and may be here for other than temporary purposes.

*465 It is not reasonable to conclude, however, that by using the term “lawful unrelin-quished domicile” in the same statute with the phrase “lawfully admitted for permanent residence,” Congress intended to benefit only this small and rather exclusive group of nonimmigrants in addition to aliens with permanent resident visas. 13 Such an interpretation strains the language of the statute. Had Congress intended that result, it would have said so more clearly.

The Lok court found support for its conclusion in the Senate Judiciary Committee’s apparent rejection of language which would have clearly required admission for permanent residence before establishment of lawful domicile. Unfortunately, we can only speculate about the Committee members’ reasons for not including this language. They might have considered it superfluous, believing that the enacted version adequately conveyed their intent that admission for permanent residence precede the seven years of domicile.

We are left with an ambiguous provision with little legislative history to clarify how Congress intended it to be applied. The INS, the agency charged with interpreting the immigration laws, 14 first interpreted § 1182(c) in 1953 15 and has adhered to its position for 26 years. We stated in Baur v. Mathews, 578 F.2d 228, 233 (9th Cir. 1978): 16

See also DHL Corp. v. C. A. B., 584 F.2d 914, 919-20 (9th Cir. 1978); Nazareno v. Attorney General of United States, 168 U.S.App.D.C. 22, 26 , 512 F.2d 936, 940 (1975).

In Matter of Anwo, Interim Decision # 2604 (BIA 1977), affirmed sub. nom. Anwo v. INS, No. 77-1879 (D.C.Cir. June 19, 1979), the BIA set forth the “important congressional purposes furthered by its interpretation.” It acknowledged that the 7th Proviso, the predecessor to § 1182(c), is a humanitarian statute designed to mitigate the harsh effects of the immigration laws.

*466 Such a provision is normally read liberally to effectuate its ameliorative purpose. Wadman v. INS, 329 F.2d 812 (9th Cir. 1964). The BIA stresses, however, that Congress enacted § 1182(c) primarily to limit the class of aliens eligible for relief, 17 and in fact considered deleting the provision entirely. 18 It asserted that its interpretation furthers Congress’ restrictive intent.

The BIA also cautioned, in Matter of Anwo, against adopting an interpretation of § 1182(c) that will undermine other provisions of the Act, particularly § 1254(a) dealing with relief from deportation. 19 It stated:

Interim Decision # 2604 at 7-8.

We cannot agree with the Lok court that the INS interpretation of § 1182(c) is “inconsistent with a statutory mandate.” The language of the statute and its legislative history are simply inconclusive on this point. Nor do we find that the INS interpretation would “frustrate the congressional policy underlying [the] legislation.” Id. To the contrary, considering the act as a whole, we find the INS interpretation preserves the overall statutory scheme of discretionary relief in deportation.

For this reason, and because of the deference which we must give to the INS’ longstanding and consistent interpretation, we hold that, to be eligible for § 1182(c) relief, aliens' must accumulate seven years of lawful unrelinquished domicile after their admission for permanent residence.

EQUAL PROTECTION:

After the Lok decision, the BIA announced that the INS would observe the Lok interpretation of § 1182(c) in the Second Circuit. Matter of Anwo, Interim Decision # 2604 at 8. Believing that interpretation to be incorrect, however, the BIA added that it would adhere to its own interpretation outside the Second Circuit. Id. Petitioner argues that this disparate application of § 182(c) violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment due process clause. Cf. Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497, 499 , 74 S.Ct. 693 , 98 L.Ed. 884 (1954). We disagree.

Aliens are entitled to the equal protection of the laws. Sugarman v. Dougall, 413 U.S. 634, 641 , 93 S.Ct. 2842 , 37 L.Ed.2d 853 (1973); Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365, 371 , 91 S.Ct. 1848 , 29 L.Ed.2d 534 (1971). However, “the right of a permanent resident alien to remain in this country has never been held to be the type of ‘fundamental right’ which would subject classification touching on it to strict judicial scrutiny, . . . Francis v. INS, 532 F.2d 268, 272 (2d Cir. 1976). Consequently, the INS has not violated petitioner’s equal protection rights if it has a rational basis for its action.

The discriminatory effect arising from the agency’s decision results entirely from the independence of federal appellate courts. It is elementary that the decisions of one Court of Appeals cannot bind another. The INS is not compelled to obey the Lok ruling outside geographical jurisdiction of the Second Circuit.

Although the INS could refuse to adopt the Lok interpretation in the Second Circuit and thereby achieve consistency of application, to do so would only invite appeal and reversal. The agency’s decision to apply the Lok interpretation in the Second Circuit avoids futile appeals, costly to both the agency and to petitioners seeking relief. We find avoidance of this unnecessary process of appeal to be a sound and rational basis for the agency’s action. Adherence to the law of the circuit only within that circuit does not violate petitioner’s equal protection rights.

The decision of the BIA is affirmed.

. Petitioner’s spouse was admitted for permanent residence following her marriage to a United States citizen in 1963. She divorced her first husband in 1964.

. Petitioner was also convicted of aiding and abetting the counterfeiting of alien registration receipt cards, 18 U.S.C. § 1426 (a) (1976), but those counts were reversed on appeal to this court because of insufficient proof that the criminal acts occurred in the United States. United States v. Castillo-Felix, 539 F.2d 9 (9th Cir. 1976).

Petitioner’s spouse was also convicted of selling and disposing of a counterfeit alien registration receipt card to an alien, knowing it to be false. She was sentenced to 18 months in prison and served one year.

. Petitioner served approximately one year of his sentence.

. In his oral opinion, the judge noted that petitioner was not eligible for voluntary departure because of his incarceration for more than six months within the last five years, which precluded him from establishing good moral character. The judge stated:

. Three rationales have been used to extend § 1182(c) relief to deportation proceedings. Aliens who committed deportable offenses, then left the United States but were not excluded upon returning, could request § 1182(c) relief “nunc pro tunc.” The INS reasoned that the discretionary relief which would have been available to them on reentry could be granted at the later deportation hearing. E. g., Matter of Tanori, Interim Decision # 2467 (BIA 1976); Matter of S, 5 I&N Dec. 392 (BIA 1954).

Alternatively, aliens eligible for voluntary departure in lieu of deportation could obtain advance determinations of their eligibility for § 1182(c) relief, to apply to their future reentry. See Matter of Anwo, Interim Decision # 2604 (BIA 1977), affirmed sub nom. Anwo v. INS, No. 77-1879 (D.C.Cir. June 19, 1979); Matter of S, 1 I&N Dec. 116 (BIA 1953).

Finally, the INS allowed deportees to apply for § 1182(c) relief in connection with an application for adjustment of status, reasoning that aliens applying for adjustment of status stand in the same position as those entering this country with a permanent resident visa. Matter of Smith, Interim Decision # 1510 (BIA 1965).

. The BIA did not base its decision on failure to meet the actual departure requirement, but on petitioner’s failure to accumulate seven years of consecutive domicile in this country after his admission for permanent residence. It is well-established that “an agency’s order must be upheld, if at all, ‘on the same basis articulated in the order by the agency itself.’ ” FPC v. Texaco, Inc., 417 U.S. 380, 397 , 94 S.Ct. 2315, 2326 , 41 L.Ed.2d 141 (1974), quoting Burlington Truck Lines v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168-69 , 83 S.Ct. 239 , 9 L.Ed.2d 207 (1962), and citing SEC v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194, 196 , 67 S.Ct. 1575 , 91 L.Ed. 1995 (1947).

Consequently, we need not resolve an apparent conflict between this circuit and the Second Circuit. In Francis v. INS, 532 F.2d 268 (2d Cir. 1976), the Second Circuit ruled that the nunc pro tunc extension of § 1182(c) (see note 5, supra) violated equal protection. The court held that it was irrational to extend § 1182(c) relief to deportees who had fortuitously departed after committing a deportable offense, but deny it to deportees who had not. The INS acquiesced in the Francis ruling and no longer requires actual departure by deportees requesting § 1182(c) relief. Matter of Silva, Interim Decision # 2532 (BIA 1976).

This circuit, however, continues to recognize the actual departure requirement. Arias-Uribe v. INS, 466 F.2d 1198 (9th Cir. 1972); followed in Nicholas v. INS, 590 F.2d 802 (9th Cir. 1979); Dunn v. INS, 499 F.2d 856, 857-8 (9th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1106 , 95 S.Ct. 776 , 42 L.Ed.2d 801 (1975). Under this line of cases, petitioner would fail to qualify for § 1182(c) relief because he did not depart the country after committing the offense for which he is being deported.

. In Matter of Anwo, the BIA denied § 1182(c) relief on two grounds: (1) petitioner had not accumulated seven years of consecutive domicile after his admission for permanent residence and (2) even if he could have accumulated the seven years of lawful domicile before his admission for permanent residence, he had not done so. Anwo argued for the same interpretation of § 1182(c) that Castillo-Felix advocates here.

On appeal in Anwo v. INS, the court did not reach the first ground for denial of relief, but affirmed on the second ground, finding that as a nonimmigrant student, Anwo could not have met the domicile requirement under either interpretation of § 1182(c).

In this case, it is also unlikely that Castillo-Felix would be eligible for relief even if we adopted his interpretation of the statute. We cannot affirm on this ground, however, because that was not an alternative ground for the decision below. See SEC v. Chenery Corp,, 332 U.S. 194, 196 , 67 S.Ct. 1575 , 91 L.Ed. 1995 (1947); note 6 supra,

. The term “lawfully admitted for permanent residence” means the status of having been lawfully accorded the privilege of residing permanently in the United States as an immigrant in accordance with the immigration laws, such status not having changed.

8 U.S.C. § 1101 (a)(20) (1976).

. The Judiciary Committee Report stated:

S.Rep.No.1515, 81st Cong., 2d Sess. 384 (1950). The suggested language did not appear in the final version of the statute.

. The Lok court cited alien students as an example of nonimmigrants who could lawfully be domiciled in the United States without acquiring permanent resident visas. 548 F.2d at 40 . Yet the Act describes a nonimmigrant student as:

8 U.S.C. § 1101 (a)(15)(F)(i) (1976) (emphasis added).

. The statute does not define “domicile” but incorporates the concept “familiar in other areas of law.” 2 Gordon & Rosenfield, Immigration Law and Procedure, § 7.4b at 7-32 (1979).

In Anwo v. INS, No. 77-1879, slip op. at 5 (D.C.Cir. June 19, 1979), the court stated:

. 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (a)(15)(A)(E)(G)(I) (1976).

. In Matter of Anwo, Interim Decision # 2604 at 5-6 (BIA 1977), affirmed sub nom. Anwo v. INS, No. 77-1879 (D.C.Cir. June 19, 1979) the BIA discussed the difference between non-immigrants and aliens admitted for permanent residence.

. The act actually charges the Attorney General with the administration and enforcement of the immigration laws, 8 U.S.C. § 1103 (a), however, the Attorney General has delegated much of that authority to the Commissioner of the INS pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1103 (b).

. Matter of S, 5 I&N Dec. 116 (BIA 1953).

. In Baur , the agency’s interpretation of the statute was set forth in a regulation. Here, it was done in an adjudicative proceeding. The manner in which the interpretation was announced here does not alter the weight it should be given.

. This was certainly how the dissenting members of the Senate Judiciary Committee viewed the provision. They stated:

S.Rep.No.1137, 82nd Cong., 2d Sess. 10 (1952).

. It has been pointed out that the seventh proviso should be abolished as it is instrumental in demoralizing the Immigration and Naturalization Service and assisting the bad alien to remain in the United States, while at the same time it keeps out the potential good and law-abiding citizen.

S.Rep.No,1515, 81st Cong., 2d Sess, 384 (1950).

. That section provides:

8 U.S.C. § 1254 (a) (1976).