that the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) wrongfully found him statutorily ineligible for discretionary relief from deportation under former § 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c). Reviewing the record de novo and giving deference to the BIA’s permissible interpretations, see INS v. Aguirre-Aguirre, 526 U.S. 415, 424, 119 S.Ct. 1439, 143 L.Ed.2d 590 (1999), we affirm for the following reasons: 1. Former § 212(c) limits eligibility for discretionary relief to “aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence.” See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c). Where permanent residency status is obtained by false pretenses the “legally admitted for permanent resident” requirement of former § 212(c) is not met. See, e.g., Matter of Longstaff, 716 F.2d 1439, 1441 (5th Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>); Rodriguez v. Ashcroft, 58 Fed.Appx. 596, 2003 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that admission is not lawful if it is regular only in form the term lawfully denotes compliance with substantive legal requirements not mere procedural regularity (B) holding that when a term is not defined in a contract the presumption is that the term is to be given its ordinary meaning and significance (C) holding that statement within expert report is not a judicial admission but is instead an admission by party (D) holding that it is not (E) holding that standard of review is a matter of procedural rather than substantive law
(A)