morning police courts even shaken appearing for petitioner there's a relatively narrow but important issue before the court and it is the attorney general the board's interpretation of the specific provision of the child status protection act and it actually is even more narrow than that it really hinges on the interpretation of the word pending yeah and i know that there has been a statement about deference to addressing delays in vsa processing and adjudication and that would indicate to the petitioners that in the spirit of products which to give a more expansive application they did not intend to follow the board's interpretation which is that the child status protection act applies only to a delay in the processing of the application by the agency which shifted from the ins to the c so it's would be our position that the application of the child status protection act would exist would exclude that time in other words he'd get that time back so that he would still be considered a child under the age of twenty are addressing the issue as to whether or not he should be treated as a child because there was a tremendous backlog in the availability of these is and so are you that crash by that language that i  certainly would support that interpretation also in page eleven seventy one and again you and i recognize projects dealt with a different procedural matter but there were some general principles of law that i think apply  the date the state department came up with well i think they're both key dates i think the starting point would be the date that we agreed that the petition was received by the agency by once that day that was august computation is that the agency says it's just the period of time which i believe was a few months certainly not a period of time which would have been under the child status protection act that the period of time between the filing and the date that we notify them of an approval which was sometime in one thousand ninety three it wouldn't possibly give them any assistance that that is the relevant pine period in which pending means before the agency not that's right yes and you want to have the state department ye i mean that simple question simple answer helper that's what the whole miles down to yes and we're just saying that because of the language in pride issue about delays and piece of processing which of course the delay in vs the processing is due to many things one of which is extreme backlogs and i also noted as i was saying that page eleven seventy one when in the privacy case when they were talking about when does a matter become final for purposes of the child status protection act the government was arguing that once the agency makes a final determination that's it and the court said this court said no it's the final determination is not just when the agency make when the agency charged with them a gratian that is good and it kept it from the ins to the i r s and all these cases that it's went as long as the matter is still being considered so i think by analogy it's reasonable to say that even if the agency the c i s is to say we finished our business when we approved it clearly the matter is still pending in front of the state department waiting for approval of a visa because the priority  statute but i think in private it was given a more generous interpretation i mean one of the problems is it's not one hundred percent clear exactly what congress intended because the real problem the real problem in family unity what's causing the break up of families in the separation of families is not so much that the agency charged with adjudicating petitions it's taking a long time and there are remedies for that such as filing mandamus to real problem is that there's a tremendous backlog in these issues and once your priority date is reached you don't get handed of these are right away there's a pretty lengthy process where you have to go back a significant number of forms provide a lot of documents come to several interviews which certainly does more than a callable argument that this court doesn't take the strict interpretation that the agency takes i think in fact it would be necessary for the court to make that what is your position on when the relevant i one about the procedure of seeking a motion to reopen the government just disagreed with our interpretation of the law but we don't know at the very beginning of the case where the case is going to go we wanted to protect the titian and so we filed a new petition so that we could assert a separate ground of reopening under the law however that is not before the court how it was your client when he married his seventy four year old right i believe that is the before the court i don't have a perfect memory but i believe he was about twenty one i think i'm within six months i believe immigration and nationality act by the child status protection act and found that petitioner was not eligible for that that type of protection ok take us through the application of the formula ok well first the first lawful permanent resident within one year of such availability in this case as an initial matter he didn't as he did not apply for adjustment of status the only adjustment of status application   it's not we have to also apply the rest of the formula and we don't get several different dates for when these it was actually approved when he actually became eligible he claimed that in sought the records while the proceedings were work ending and that's what the record is as it stands now and that's the record that was before the agency as well upon which it based its decision and if we look at the honor he has to show his eligibility for adjustment and i think this is that he hasn't done so and if you look at the provision of the child status protection act and the formula in question it talks about the age of the ailing and alien pending and that's the language that your president juvenile fourteen failed within one year in other words he should have done something before he was fifteen years of no we don't again we don't know when this approval actually occurred when he was eligible to adjust we know the period by which it was pending which was about probably less than a year but we don't know when h mother actually adjusted when he was when he became as eligible for adjustment and what he would like to board the agency to do is they simply instead of construing the period pending as the period from the time that the requests for these piled to the date on which the it's approved instead of using that period of time he would like you to use the period of time from the time that was that it was reduced by the number of days in the period during which the applicable petition was pending your construction of arms work well i can see our construction of that is that application pending being the time that during which he was seeking adjustment or during which his family's adjustment and again if you look at the language of the statute itself a petition can be pending once it's already approved it wouldn't make sense for the word ending to be use and in dishes and when you talk about first is a visa you're talking about something that has not been approved versus something that has been approved so once it's approved it's been approved it's not a petition any longer so the plain language of the statute itself supports the board's determination what's the practical get to adjust and that's not what what this was put into place for and certainly if congress had wanted to you could just say if your parent files for you congress if your parent files for you when you're under twenty one you're always eligible that would that would have been the easiest way to do this rather than to put in a put in a formula that at least is complicated enough to make it to this court for review  and in addition if you look at look at the house report that's cited in our brief that report talks about the purposes of the child protection act itself and the purpose was to eliminate a specific who's waiting for a number to become current who is willing to actually be able to get these or to adjust it doesn't say that it says we're going to work on this backlog and we're going to try to remedy that particular situation and unfortunately for partition or that doesn't that doesn't help them but that doesn't mean that there's anything wrong with the board's interpretation of it and it's really on the plain language of this particular might change things because i believe that put him back into looking for this particular visa through his family rather than looking through his which is what he was doing so by marrying his processing which is something utterly different than the adjudication by the service and they talked about as long as the marriage spending that's why i am against the law does want to keep themselves and force the but i think the court understands my position