("[T]he applicability of § 1252(a)(2)(C) is a straightforward inquiry: Was the alien charged with removability because of a relevant crime, and did the IJ correctly sustain that charge?"(internal quotation marks omitted)). Contrary to the government's argument, our decision in Qui Guan Di Zhang v. INS , 274 F.3d 103 (2d Cir. 2001), does not require a different interpretation of Section 1252(a)(2)(C). Zhang considered the scope of covered crimes that are subject to the jurisdictional limitation in Section 1252(a)(2)(C). 274 F.3d

"[I]t is beyond cavil that one of Congress's principal goals in enacting [the Illegal Immigration Reform Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), Pub.L. No. 104-208, Div. C, 110 Stat. 3009-546 (1996)] was to expedite the removal of aliens who have been convicted of aggravated felonies." Zhang v. INS, 274 F.3d 103, 108 (2d Cir. 2001) (citing Moore v. Ashcroft, 251 F.3d 919, 925 (11th Cir. 2001)); see also Hernandez-Vermudez, 356 F.3d at 1014 ("Congress clearly intended to expedite the removal of criminal aliens who are not lawful permanent residents."). "Sometimes legislative history is itself ambiguous.

A claim must be raised before the BIA in order to be entitled to review by this Court. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Qui Guan Di Zhang v. INS, 274 F.3d 103, 107 (2d Cir. 2001). Insofar as Villar argues that he is eligible for adjustment of status pursuant to Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA") § 245(i), this Court is without jurisdiction to consider this claim, as Villar never raised this claim either before the IJ or BIA, and, thus, it remains unexhausted.

Id.See also Bamba v. Elwood, 252 F.Supp.2d 195, 202-03 (E.D.Pa. 2003); cf. Zhang v. INS, 274 F.3d 103, 107-08 (2d Cir. 2001) (rejecting the argument that § 1252(a)(2)(C)'s reference to § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) limits § 1252(a)(2)(C)'s application only to aliens who were "admitted" and holding that the reference to § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) simply includes aliens who have committed aggravated felonies). We acknowledge that the statute can be read as Hernandez-Vermudez urges.

Moreover, Valdiviez's proposed interpretation would contravene Congress's intent to expedite removal of aliens who have committed aggravated felonies. See Zhang v. INS, 274 F.3d 103, 108 (2d Cir.2001) (“[I]t is beyond cavil that one of Congress's principal goals in enacting IIRIRA was to expedite the removal of aliens who have been convicted of aggravated felonies.” (citations omitted and alterations in original)); Hernandez–Vermudez, 356 F.3d at 1014 (“There simply is no denying that in enacting ... [IIRIRA], Congress intended to expedite the removal of criminal aliens.

Indeed, to conclude otherwise would undermine the IIRIRA's stated purpose. See Bamba v. Riley, 366 F.3d 195, 202–03 (3d Cir.2004) (INA “evince[s] a broad Congressional intent to expedite the removal of criminal aliens”); Zhang v. I.N.S., 274 F.3d 103, 108 (2d Cir.2001) ( “[I]t is beyond cavil that one of Congress's principal goals in enacting IIRIRA was to expedite the removal of aliens who have been convicted of aggravated felonies.”). Like the Ninth Circuit, we can discern “no reason why Congress would give a pass to non-citizens who had fraudulently obtained LPR status while barring from relief non-citizens who had legitimately obtained LPR status.” Hing Sum, 602 F.3d at 1097 (citation omitted); see United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 334, 112 S.Ct. 1351, 117 L.Ed.2d 593 (1992) (citing United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576, 580, 101 S.Ct. 2524, 69 L.Ed.2d 246 (1981) (when interpreting statutes, “absurd results are to be avoided”)).

Again, that is not what section 103(d) says. Moreover, as the Government points out, see Brief for Defendants-Appellees at 38-39, the Appellants' reading would create the anomaly that the statute would apply to removal proceedings commenced as far back as April 1997 (when what used to be called deportation proceedings became removal proceedings, see Zhang v. INS, 274 F.3d 103, 106 (2d Cir. 2001)), but would not apply to acts committed before the effective date. The Government's reply does not really meet the Appellants' point that the Government's reading of subsection 103(d)(2) renders subsection 103(d)(1) redundant.

Nerghes concedes his removability under this statute. The statute is part of a larger scheme designed to "expedite the removal of aliens who have been convicted of aggravated felonies," Zhang v. INS, 274 F.3d 103, 108 (2d Cir. 2001), and one of Congress's tools to accomplish that goal was a provision that limits our jurisdiction. Under the statutory scheme Congress established,

Accordingly, we may not consider it on appeal."); Zhang v. INS, 274 F.3d 103, 107 (2d Cir.2001) ("a litigant is generally not entitled to judicial review of a contention not argued to the Board, see § 1252(d)(1)"); Alyas v. Gonzales, 419 F.3d 756, 762 (8th Cir.2005) ("Because [petitioner] failed to present [his due process] argument to the BIA in the first instance, we lack jurisdiction to decide the claim." (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1))); Zara v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 927, 930 (9th Cir.2004) ("A petitioner cannot satisfy the exhaustion requirement by making a general challenge to the IJ's decision, but, rather, must specify which issues form the basis of the appeal."); Ramani v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 554, 560 (6th Cir.2004) ("only claims properly presented to the BIA and considered on their merits can be reviewed by this court"); Xie v. Ashcroft, 359 F.3d 239, 245 n. 8 (3d Cir.2004) ("we are without jurisdiction to decide [an] issue" as to which "[p]etitioner brings [an] argument for the first time"); Fernandez-Bernal v. Attorney General, 257 F.3d 1304, 1317 n. 13 (11th Cir.2001) (p

to evade inspection" while transporting six undocumented Mexican women into this country in his van); Sidhu v. Ashcroft, 368 F.3d 1160, 1163 (9th Cir. 2004) (smuggler agreed in advance to help a young man illegally enter the United States, guided him through immigration at the airport and was suspected of providing false documents); Olowo v. Ashcroft, 368 F.3d 692, 695 (7th Cir. 2004) (smuggler presented a plane ticket and birth certificate to officials on behalf of the illegal alien, both of which were in the name of a legal resident, then lied to immigration official that she was the illegal alien's mother); Selimi v. Ashcroft, 360 F.3d 736, 737 (7th Cir. 2004) (smuggler purchased falsified passports); Lopez De Jesus v. INS, 312 F.3d 155, 157 (5th Cir. 2002) (smuggler knowingly handed false documents to the immigration official); United States v. Tsai, 282 F.3d 690, 693 (9th Cir. 2002) (smuggler bought airline tickets for illegal aliens and did so using false names for the aliens); Zhang v. INS, 274 F.3d 103, 105 (2d Cir. 2001) (smuggler helped steer a boatload of illegal aliens across the ocean and admitted that he planned to enter the United States "surreptitiously"); Witter v. INS, 113 F.3d 549, 551 (5th Cir. 1997) (smuggler falsely stated she was married to the illegal alien and presented visas that were procured on the basis of the marriage, which had already been annulled); Vasquez-Araujo v. Ashcroft, 107 Fed.Appx. 155 (9th Cir. 2004) (unpublished) (smuggler drove illegal alien to border where alien presented a false birth certificate supplied by the daughter of the smuggler's girlfriend); In ReL — S____, 22 I. N. Dec. 645, 654 (BIA 1999) (smuggler drove illegal alien in a hidden compartment of a van); In re Compean-Guevara, 21 I. N. Dec. at 52 (smuggler drove the illegal alien across the border and told the official that the alien was a U.S. citizen); Matter of Contreras, 18 I. N. Dec. 30, 30-31 (BIA 1981) (smuggler attempted to re-enter the United States with a man concealed in the back of his veh