Rotimi argued that he had lawfully resided continuously in this country since June 7, 1995, the date he arrived on a B-2 visa, because he had applied for asylum, then adjustment, then become an LPR since then. The IJ and the BIA disagreed.In a precedential decision (issued after an earlier remand from the Second Circuit), Matter of Rotimi, 24 I&N Dec. 567 (BIA 2008), the BIA provided its interpretation of § 212(h)’s lawful continuous residence requirement: First, the BIA examined the legislative history of § 212(h), which provides in relevantpart that the “managers intend that the provisions governing continuous residence set forth inINA section 240A as enacted by this legislation shall be applied as well for purposes of waiversunder INA section 212(h).” H.R. Rep. No. 104-828, at 228 (1996) (Conf.