IKUTA, Circuit Judge:

Ortega-Lopez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a ruling by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that he was ineligible for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). We hold that the BIA reasonably concluded that Ortega-Lopez had been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude for which a sentence of one year or longer may be imposed based on his conviction under 7 U.S.C. § 2156(a)(1) (criminalizing specified conduct relating to animal fighting ventures). We also defer to the BIA’s conclusion that an alien who has been convicted of such an offense is an alien “convicted of an offense under section . . . 1227(a)(2),” 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(C). Therefore, we deny the petition for review.

I

The question on appeal is whether Ortega-Lopez is ineligible for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1) because he was “convicted of an offense under” 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2) (listing grounds of deportability). To understand this question in context, we begin with some historical background.

Before enactment of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), “United States immigration law established two types of proceedings

6 ORTEGA-LOPEZ V. BARR

in which aliens can be denied the hospitality of the United States: deportation hearings and exclusion hearings.” Vartelas v. Holder, 566 U.S. 257, 261 (2012) (quoting Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21, 25 (1982)). “Exclusion hearings were held for certain aliens seeking entry to the United States, and deportation hearings were held for certain aliens who had already entered this country.” Id.

Under pre-IIRIRA law, “entry” was defined as a person’s physical entry into the United States, whether lawfully or unlawfully. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(13) (1994) (defining “entry” to mean “any coming of an alien into the United States, from a foreign port or place”). Under this law, an alien who entered the United States could be charged with grounds of deportability in a deportation hearing. See, e.g., Mendoza v. INS, 16 F.3d 335, 336–37 (9th Cir. 1994). An alien who was stopped at the border or a port of entry (even if subsequently paroled into the United States) could be charged with grounds of exclusion in an exclusion hearing. See, e.g., Ramirez- Durazo v. INS, 794 F.2d 491, 495–97 (9th Cir. 1986). The government had the burden of proof at a deportation hearing, while the alien had the burden of proof at an exclusion hearing. Compare Gameros-Hernandez, 883 F.2d 839, 841 (9th Cir. 1989) (deportation), with Clark v. Smith, 967 F.2d 1329, 1331 (9th Cir. 1992) (exclusion). Because the government had to prove that any alien who had entered the United States met the requirements for deportation, an alien who entered unlawfully had an advantage over an alien stopped at the border. See, e.g., Ramirez-Durazo, 794 F.2d at 496–97 & n.2.

IIRIRA amended this framework. Congress intended to eliminate the anomaly “under which illegal aliens who have entered the United States without inspection gain equities and

ORTEGA-LOPEZ V. BARR 7

privileges in immigration proceedings that are not available to aliens who present themselves for inspection at a port of entry.” Torres v. Barr, ___ F.3d ___, ___, 2020 WL 5668478, at *8 (9th Cir. 2020) (en banc) (quoting H.R. Rep. 104-469, pt. 1, at 225 (1996)); see also Matter of Valenzuela- Felix, 26 I. & N. Dec. 53, 60 n.7 (BIA 2012) (same). Therefore, Congress replaced the term “entry,” see § 1101(a)(13) (1994), with the term “admission,” § 1101(a)(13)(A) (stating that “[t]he terms ‘admission’ and ‘admitted’ mean, with respect to an alien, the lawful entry of the alien into the United States after inspection and authorization by an immigration officer”). IIRIRA also replaced the term “excludable aliens” with “inadmissible aliens,” and replaced grounds for exclusion with grounds of inadmissibility. See Xi v. INS, 298 F.3d 832, 838 (9th Cir. 2002). Under this new framework, a person who physically entered the United States but was not admitted is subject to grounds of inadmissibility, rather than deportability, and has to bear the corresponding burden of proving admissibility. Congress also eliminated separate exclusion and deportation hearings, and it channeled all aliens into removal hearings. Vartelas, 566 U.S. at 262. Despite this procedural unification, the substantive bases for excluding and deporting aliens remained distinct and addressed in different statutory sections. Judulang v. Holder, 565 U.S. 42, 46 (2011). The list of offenses related to inadmissibility remained in 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a), and the list of offenses related to deportability remained in 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a). These lists are “sometimes overlapping and sometimes divergent.” Judulang, 565 U.S. at 46.

Both inadmissible and deportable aliens may apply for cancellation of removal under § 1229b(b)(1). Under § 1229b(b)(1), the Attorney General has discretion to cancel

8 ORTEGA-LOPEZ V. BARR

removal of an alien who is inadmissible or deportable if the alien meets four statutory requirements. One such requirement is that the alien “has not been convicted of an offense under section 1182(a)(2), 1227(a)(2), or 1227(a)(3) of this title.”1 § 1229b(b)(1)(C). The three cross-referenced sections list various criminal offenses. The section at issue here, § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i), relates to deportability and crimes involving moral turpitude:

(i) Crimes of moral turpitude. Any alien who—

(I) is convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude committed within five years (or 10 years in the case of an alien provided lawful permanent resident status under section 1255(j) of this title) after the date of admission, and

(II) is convicted of a crime for which a sentence of one year or longer may be imposed, is deportable.

II

We now turn to the facts of this case. Ortega-Lopez, a native and citizen of Mexico, unlawfully entered the United States in 1994. In January 2008, Ortega-Lopez was indicted on several criminal counts, including violations of 7 U.S.C.

1 This requirement is subject to the domestic violence waiver not applicable here. § 1229b(b)(1), (5).

ORTEGA-LOPEZ V. BARR 9

§ 2156(a)(1) for sponsoring or exhibiting an animal in an animal fighting venture. In 2009, Ortega-Lopez pleaded guilty to a single count under § 2156(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2(a) for knowingly aiding and abetting another person who sponsored or exhibited an animal in an animal fighting venture.^[2]

While his criminal case was pending, the government commenced removal proceedings against Ortega-Lopez. Because Ortega-Lopez had not been admitted into the United States, he was subject to grounds of inadmissibility. The government served him with a notice to appear which charged him as being removable on the ground that he was an “alien present in the United States without being admitted or paroled.” § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). Ortega-Lopez conceded he was removable and applied for cancellation of removal under § 1229b(b)(1). The immigration judge (IJ) denied Ortega- Lopez’s application for cancellation of removal on the ground that he had been convicted of a violation of § 2156(a)(1), a crime involving moral turpitude for which a sentence of a year or longer may be imposed. Ortega-Lopez appealed to the BIA. The BIA dismissed Ortega-Lopez’s appeal, Matter of Ortega-Lopez, 26 I. & N. Dec. 99 (BIA 2013) (Ortega- Lopez I ).

We granted Ortega-Lopez’s petition for review and remanded the case to the BIA for further consideration. Ortega-Lopez v. Lynch, 834 F.3d 1015, 1018 (9th Cir. 2016) We again begin with some background. To be eligible for cancellation of removal under § 1229b(b), the alien must not have “been convicted of an offense under section 1182(a)(2), 1227(a)(2), or 1227(a)(3),” among other things. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). In Gonzalez-Gonzalez v. Ashcroft, we

10 Ortega-Lopez argues that the phrase “crime involving moral turpitude” is unconstitutionally vague. We have repeatedly rejected this argument on the ground that it is foreclosed by both Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent. See, e.g., Islas-Veloz v. Whitaker, 914 F.3d 1249, 1251 (9th Cir. 2019), cert. denied sub nom., Islas-Veloz v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 2704 (2020); Martinez-de Ryan v. Whitaker, 909 F.3d 247, 251–52 (9th Cir. 2018), cert. denied sub nom., Martinez-de Ryan v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 134 (2019). Bound by that precedent, we reject the argument again.

20 ORTEGA-LOPEZ V. BARR

concluded that “the plain language of § 1229b indicates that it should be read to cross-reference a list of offenses in three statutes, rather than the statutes as a whole.” 390 F.3d 649, 652 (9th Cir. 2004). Moreover, we held that “[t]he most logical reading of ‘convicted of an offense under’ is that reached by the BIA: ‘convicted of an offense described under’ each of the three sections.” Id. We reasoned that an alien cannot be “convicted under” § 1227, because it is not a criminal statute. Id. Rather, the elements of § 1227 are “prerequisites to deportability.” Id. Because the cross- reference in § 1229b(b) focused on the list of criminal offenses (not the other prerequisites to deportability), we held it was irrelevant whether the alien seeking cancellation of removal was in the country unlawfully (and therefore subject to grounds of inadmissibility) or was in the country lawfully (and therefore subject to grounds of deportability). Id. at 651–53. Regardless of the alien’s status, the alien did not qualify for cancellation of removal if the alien had been convicted of an offense listed in any of the three statutes. Id.

In light of Gonzalez-Gonzalez, the BIA subsequently held that the cross-reference in § 1229b(b)(1)(C) unambiguously incorporated “only language specifically pertaining to the criminal offense, such as the offense itself and the sentence imposed or potentially imposed.” Cortez Canales, 25 I. & N. Dec. at 307–08. In Cortez Canales, the BIA rejected the alien’s argument that § 1229b(b)(1)(C) also incorporated language in § 1227(a)(2) “pertaining only to aspects of immigration law, such as the requirement that the alien’s crime be committed ‘within five years . . . after the date of admission.’” Id. According to the BIA, this exclusion of immigration-related elements “clearly follows” from the conclusion in Gonzales-Gonzales that “the plain language of section [1229b(b)(1)(C)] should be read to cross-reference a

ORTEGA-LOPEZ V. BARR 21 list of offenses in three statutes, rather than the statutes as a whole.” Id. at 308.

To further support this conclusion, the BIA compared the cross-reference in § 1229b(b)(1)(C) to the cross-reference in § 1229b(d)(1) (the stop-time rule), which relates to an offense “that renders the alien inadmissible to the United States under section 1182(a)(2) of this title or removable from the United States under section 1227(a)(2) or 1227(a)(4) of this title.” The BIA noted that the stop-time rule showed Congress knew “how to draft statutory language requiring an alien to be inadmissible or removable under a specific charge” in a cross-referenced section. Cortez Canales, 25 I. & N. Dec. at 308. The BIA concluded that, “[s]ince Congress did not include language requiring that an alien be inadmissible or removable in section [1229b(b)(1)(C)], it is clear that it did not intend for the immigration-related elements” of the three cross-referenced statutes to be incorporated in § 1229b(b)(1)(C). Id. The BIA explained in the alternative that, “even if the language of [§ 1229b(b)(1)(C)] were found to be ambiguous, we would interpret it in the same manner.” Id.

In Lozano-Arredondo, we addressed the question whether the cross-reference in § 1229b(b)(1)(C) to an “offense under” § 1227(a)(2) incorporates only the offense-related elements or also included the immigration-related elements, namely, that an alien is deportable if the alien commits a listed offense “more than five years after his admission to the United States.” 866 F.3d at 1085. Although we acknowledged the BIA’s decision in Cortez-Canales, we declined to defer to it because the “BIA erroneously concluded Congress’ intent had been clearly expressed at Chevron step one, and thus did not exercise its expertise and discretion in interpreting the

22 ORTEGA-LOPEZ V. BARR

statute at Chevron step two.” Id. (citation omitted). Even though the BIA explained it would have reached the same conclusion if the cross-reference were ambiguous, Lozano- Arredondo classified this statement as an insufficient “one- sentence caveat” that failed to exercise the BIA’s “expertise and discretion in interpreting the statute.” Id. at 1093 (quoting Gila River Indian Cmty. v. United States, 729 F.3d 1139, 1149, 1150 (9th Cir. 2013)).

Contrary to the BIA’s view, Lozano-Arredondo deemed the cross-reference in § 1229b(b)(1)(C) to be ambiguous and susceptible to several interpretations. Id. at 1089. Lozano- Arredondo explained that the cross-reference in § 1229b(b)(1)(C) could refer to “(1) only the criminal offense itself—a crime involving moral turpitude; (2) the criminal offense plus one additional element of the deportable offense (i.e., the criminal offense plus either the within-five-years limitation or the sentence-length limitation); or (3) all three elements of the deportable offense.” Id. at 1085, 1089–90.

Lozano-Arredondo suggested that the “all three elements” interpretation was the most reasonable. Id. at 1091. It noted that Gonzales-Gonzales “did not foreclose” an interpretation of the cross-reference in § 1229b(b)(1)(C) that incorporates the element in § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i) requiring the crime to have been “committed within five years . . . after the date of admission.” Lozano-Arredondo, 866 F.3d at 1090. Lozano- Arredondo also noted its view that the legislative history of § 1229b(b)(1)(C) “indicates Congress understood § 1229b(b)(1)(C) to incorporate all elements of the deportable offenses under § 1227(a)(2),” including the five year requirement. Id. at 1090–91. In reaching this conclusion, Lozano-Arredondo relied on a House Conference Report which described § 1229b(b)(1) as follows:

ORTEGA-LOPEZ V. BARR 23

“Section 1229b(b)(1) provides that the Attorney General may cancel removal in the case of an alien who has at no time been convicted of an offense that would render the alien inadmissible under § 1182(a)(2)(A) or deportable under § 1227(a)(2).” Id. (cleaned up) (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 104- 828, at 213 (1996) (Conf. Rep.), 1996 WL 563320).

Under the all-three-elements interpretation, an alien who had committed a crime involving moral turpitude would still be eligible for cancellation of removal if the crime had been committed more than five years after the date of admission. Lozano-Arredondo acknowledged that some aliens seeking cancellation of removal were never admitted and, if the cross- reference in § 1229b(b)(1)(C) incorporated the within-five- years element, aliens who were in the country unlawfully “could never be deemed ineligible for cancellation under § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i).” 866 F.3d at 1092. Such a result “would be contrary to our holding in Gonzalez-Gonzalez that offenses under § 1227(a)(2) do apply to non-admitted aliens in the cancellation context.” Id. Excluding the within-five-years element altogether, as the BIA had done, was permissible to avoid this conflict. But Lozano-Arredondo proposed a different option: The BIA could interpret “admission” in this limited context to mean “physical ‘entry’ when applied to an alien who has not been ‘admitted’” as defined in the INA. Id.

Without holding that any one interpretation was the “only reasonable interpretation,” Lozano-Arredondo “decide[d] only that the inclusion of the word ‘admission’ as part of the within-five-years element does not compel the conclusion that Congress intended to exclude this element from the ‘offense under’ § 1227(a)(2)(A)(I).” 866 F.3d at 1092–93. Given its holding that § 1229b(b)(1)(C) was ambiguous, Lozano-Arredondo stated that “[t]he BIA erred at Chevron

24 ORTEGA-LOPEZ V. BARR

step one by concluding Congress clearly intended not to incorporate the within-five-years element of § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i).” Id. at 1093. Therefore, Lozano- Arredondo declined to defer to Cortez Canales and remanded the case to the BIA for the BIA to “reconsider its interpretation of the phrase ‘offense under’ in § 1229b(b)(1)(C).” Id.

The BIA’s analysis in this case responded to Lozano- Arredondo’s ruling that the cross-reference in § 1229b(b)(1)(C) to “an offense under” § 1227(a)(2) was ambiguous. The BIA first restated its prior interpretation in Cortez Canales, that the cross-reference in § 1229b(b)(1)(C) incorporated only the offense itself and the sentence imposed or potentially imposed. Ortega-Lopez III, 27 I. & N. Dec. at 392. The BIA then turned to the potential alternative interpretation suggested by Lozano-Arredondo, that § 1229b(b)(1)(C) incorporated the within-five-years element and simultaneously altered the meaning of admission “as that term is used throughout [section 1227(a)]” to mean “entry.” Id. The BIA gave a reasoned explanation for declining to adopt this alternative interpretation and for reaffirming the interpretation it had adopted in Cortez Canales.

First, the BIA noted that “one of the overarching themes” of IIRIRA “was to replace the term ‘entry’ with the term ‘admission,’ thereby providing that a person who had entered the United States without meeting the specific statutory requirements for an admission would be subject to grounds of inadmissibility, rather than deportability.” Id. at 392–93. Drawing on the explicit distinctions between “entry” and

ORTEGA-LOPEZ V. BARR 25

“admission” that were made in IIRIRA amendments to the INA, the BIA held that “[c]onstruing the word ‘admission’ to mean ‘entry’ would be contrary to that overall purpose.” Id. at 393. For instance, “Congress demonstrated that it considered the terms to have different meanings because it retained the term ‘entry’ in certain provisions.” Id. (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(E)); see also, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(13)(A) (defining “admission” to mean “the lawful entry of the alien into the United States after inspection and authorization by an immigration officer”). The BIA noted that we had previously rejected the argument that the terms “entry” and “admission” were interchangeable. Ortega-Lopez III, 27 I. & N. Dec. at 397 (citing Xi, 298 F.3d at 838).

The BIA also reasoned that a statute’s cross-reference to a different statutory section functions as an “incorporation” of the referenced section and not as a “modification” of the referenced section. Id. at 393 (citing Torres v. Lynch, 136 S. Ct. 1619, 1626 n.5 (2016)). Thus, the “most reasonable reading” of the cross-reference in § 1229b(b)(1)(C) to an “offense under” § 1227(a)(2) was that § 1229b(b)(1)(C) incorporated the offense-related elements of § 1227(a)(2) but not the immigration-related elements. Id. (citing Torres, 136 S. Ct. 1619, as an example of a partial incorporation by reference in the INA).

The BIA rejected the suggestion that this reading would render superfluous the within-five-years element in § 1227(a)(2). Id. at 393–94. The BIA instead explained that its interpretation “actually avoids rendering language in the cancellation of removal statute superfluous,” because the BIA

26 ORTEGA-LOPEZ V. BARR

recognized the difference between lists of offenses that prevent an alien from being eligible for relief from removal and the prerequisites that render an alien removable. Id. at 394.

Second, the BIA evaluated the legislative history cited in Lozano-Arredondo and concluded that it neither undermined Cortez Canales nor supported an alternative interpretation. Id. The BIA determined that, notwithstanding the language in the House Conference Report on IIRIRA, it would be unreasonable to conclude that Congress intended to require that an alien who had never been admitted (and was subject to grounds of inadmissibility, not grounds of deportability) was deportable for purposes of cancellation of removal, yet not actually deportable “in the sense that the term is normally understood.” Id. at 395. Moreover, Congress did not adopt the specific language set out in the House Conference Report (and quoted in Lozano-Arredondo), even though it had adopted similar language for the stop-time rule. Id. at 395–96.

Based on its reasoned analysis of the statutory language, and after giving detailed consideration to Lozano-Arredondo and relevant legislative history, the BIA concluded again that the best interpretation of § 1229b(b)(1)(C) “is that the ‘offense under’ language is a limited cross-reference, one that incorporates only the offense-specific characteristics of the cross-referenced sections.” Id. at 397. Therefore, the BIA reaffirmed its decision in Cortez Canales.

Presented with ambiguous statutory language, “we may not supply the interpretation of the statute we think best (as we would without an agency pronouncement).” Marmolejo- Campos, 558 F.3d at 908. We are instead limited under

ORTEGA-LOPEZ V. BARR 27

Chevron to determining whether the agency’s interpretation is permissible and “not clearly contrary to the plain meaning of the statute.” Parrilla, 414 F.3d at 1041. Here, Lozano- Arredondo recognized that the cross-reference in § 1229b(b)(1)(C) is ambiguous and could be interpreted as referring only to the “criminal offense plus . . . the sentence- length limitation,” 866 F.3d at 1085, 1089–90. And although we offered our own possible interpretation of the statute, we expressly noted that “we are not yet prepared to hold it is the only reasonable interpretation” and acknowledged that our suggested interpretation “goes beyond the ordinary immigration definition of admission.” Id. at 1092–93. We also cautioned the BIA that holding constant the meaning of “admission” in § 1227(a)(2) would require “ignoring either the legislative history or our holding in Gonzalez-Gonzales that § 1227(a)(2) applies both to admitted and non-admitted aliens.” Id. at 1092.

The BIA ignored neither legislative history nor our prior holding in Gonzales-Gonzales. It grappled with legislative history before it declined to adopt Lozano-Arredondo’s alternative approach that would require “reconstruing a cross- referenced statute for the purpose of resolving an ambiguity in the referencing provision.” Ortega-Lopez III, 27 I. & N. Dec. at 393. The BIA instead favored a reasonable approach that interpreted “an ambiguous statute in a manner that is consistent with its statutory cross-reference.” Id.

We conclude that the BIA adopted a permissible interpretation of the statute based on its expertise and discretion. It is reasonable to conclude that the offenses described under the cross-referenced sections “apply to all aliens—regardless of admission status—for purposes of § 1229b(b)(1)(C)’s bar on cancellation of removal.” Lozano-

28 ORTEGA-LOPEZ V. BARR

Arredondo, 866 F.3d at 1090 (citing Gonzales-Gonzales, 390 F.3d at 652). It also reasonable to conclude that ambiguous statutory cross-references will not always incorporate every component of the referenced section. See Torres, 136 S. Ct. at 1625, 1634. And, in light of the statutory text and legislative history, it was reasonable for the BIA to reject an interpretation that would require a redefinition of a statutorily defined term, “admission,” that was central to the changes made by IIRIRA to the INA. Thus, given that Lozano-Arredondo determined that § 1229b(b)(1)(C) was susceptible to the BIA’s interpretation and the BIA’s interpretation is not clearly contrary to the plain meaning of the statute, we defer to the BIA’s interpretation.^[11]