and let me start with the act of a statement you the a person can't fail to do something it doesn't say anything about the conditions that result in the failure so i'm not sure why active voice gets you as far as you suggest it does i mean you would be active failing does not relate to or speak to the conditions that cause you to fail and we're in the plain text of the statute among others that had that language in it that required some sort of activity that the ailing would not be held responsible if it wasn't their fault yes on stage  whether there was some impediment that to be aliens proceeding forward and to be a makes the point would seems pretty glaring here that there is no such language in the it's focused on the meaning of the words terminate and abandon and what that means we don't have words like terminate or banned and here we have the word failure to use something value a failure at stands up for five months yet let's say that we can't this day one and then he goes through roughly august and he's is understood the record was that he was preparing his application for reinstatement of status so little unclear to me whether he had been at a status for more than five months or whether he was just getting up to the window but then in roughly august when it's right about five months that he gets arrested what i had struggled with in studying for this case was well he obviously had been out of status for almost if not the five months prior to the time that he was incarcerated but i guess your ultimate point which i think you're arguing now is it doesn't really matter whether he was out of stance for more than five months because you still have the statutory and interpretation issue in any it because he was ultimately deemed removable because he was out of status pre board than five months and the old the issue is if he had been arrested if he had not been arrested thirteen months earlier non citizens control requirement in the statute such requirement does not appear in the statute nor to social requirements appear in any of the implementing real regulations either and as we identify in our certain situation is the result of circumstances beyond the knots is controlled but those scenarios don't apply here the position also argues that there is a sort of affirmative act on the part of a string the language here is obviously quite different it's not terminated or balance it's failure to maintain that's not a failure to do something well then if i didn't see i i don't recall that argument being made in your brief i understand that the argument that to be the statement perhaps wisely so the more it's made but i don't call you making that argument but and to be more to the point in that case it seems to me you do have the is fail to maintain so as to terminate or to abandon i think that connotes the idea that you are doing something to terminate doing something to abandon to fail to maintain means to to not do something to say to not take some action and be the implementing regulations set forth various requirements that are necessary to maintain status st and foremost is maintaining a full course of study which is generally defined as twelve hours per semester if one regulations contain certain exceptions for when any student may still be considered to maintain to be maintaining status even though they aren't having twelve credit hours for instance during the annual vacation if it's necessary for them to drop below a full course load because of medical reasons or because in their st message heather having difficulties with endless english proficiency so the regulations then so i think the the point your honour's is something that just fail to maintain suggests a failure to do something the regulations set forth what is required in origin maintain and that is a a situation from saying you have to you know terminate or you have to abandon it's different language that results in a different need for how come let me let me ask you this in your brief there is a take as the awkward to date the date of that whatever that whatever the data base indicated that it fails to maintain status and and so it is not is not the notation database it's whether the student has continued to comply with the dishes that are necessary to maintain status and so what but that's not her question here though i'm talking about the review issue i'm talking about the question of respective of this whole interpretation is here we know as a matter of fact that he had failed to maintain his status problem by the time he was arrested and as a consequence of that if this whole right maybe not for the reasons that indicated but it's right because he had failed to maintain a status now is that consistent with our review standard for the beyond i think that's a good question your honor  other other cases we have cited in our in our brief mother circuits that not necessarily a correct understanding of the statute or the regulations but even you know taking that date of the serious notation as when his status was terminated this court should still there not a petition for review because under this interpretive question which your arse have been discussing today there should still be denied and that's a point i want to get if maybe as a matter of fact that is not the way but for purposes of how we look at this review and whether we need to  engage with the interpretive these few other words be a seem to say alright fine we'll take you take it but you were terminated on the by the c vis terminations day and that you could not you were out of status because you were arrested even if i spots you those things you still lose because of the interpolated question it seems it seems to me that is the scope of the question that we are faced with now view are properly before us out beyond the fact that they would be related we did beat those two and other words the interpretive issue and the issue of whether there was substantial evidence to support the  decision note i don't see him making the argument that under the b o h interpretation there wasn't substantial evidence you say under his interpretation there is so no matter what are those two questions before us causes by camp ok and what i understood him to argue is if you adopt that the use of the law since there would not be facts to support that in the record fiance would not have had substantial evidence to support its decision so those two issues would really be related there of a piece but what i'm saying is do you accept the premise that those two go to get there and no matter what we decide those two they stand or fall in some ways together but i'm just trying to see for purposes what we need to i think are strongly correct your honor i suppose if this court were to agree with the government on the interpretive question there for them potentially a whole question of you know whether he was arguing that there's a lack of substantial