united states for a one thousand nine hundred nine conviction for possession of small amount of marijuana and he was placed into removal proceedings the board of immigration appeals found the petitioner was ineligible for cancellation of removal because he committed an offense that rendered inadmissible to the united states right suppose someone who has been convicted know what terrorism abroad in some other country is living where he and whatever country he lives is he not inadmissible to the united states if that person were outside the united states yes because he's not looking to come to the united states when he comes to the united states or he tries to come openly to the united states there would be a determination perhaps that he's inadmissible but conceptually isn't he inadmissible right now were ever hears he can't be admitted to the united states no your honor what the we are doing and this is actually the crux of our case is that there are two separate elements to the stop time provision in the eye and say the first would be that he that the person has committed an offense that renders committed an offense that i described within the i and the second would be that if they would stop time and stop the seven years no the the seven years would stop upon the the completion of the second prong of that requirement which is that the the commission of the offense renders the person inadmissible so in this situation that that you raise the person outside the country would have committed an offense that is described within the i a e a but would only be explicitly on this point has expressly stated that there is a key difference between those persons who are in the class of persons who are deportable and those who are in the class of persons who are inadmissible in would only be if if they had under six delineated categories and at the time that they came into the united states so the key here is not the petitioners can commission of have said we concluded you don't have to be actually charged and found inadmissible or removable in order for the stop time provision to kick and were in my misunderstanding that well it is my understanding that  simply stated and this is what calix found simply stated that you could be found removable on one ground and in eligible for cancellation of removal on another ground calix said that that was not enough to decide this particular issue and then reached its own conclusion but that was that may have been the narrow holding of the b i say in geraldo but it's reasoning would apply equally to this situation wouldn't the reason why they said you could be found removable on one ground and have the stop time apply in the other is it is the same reasoning that would apply here w it not in the same reasoning that the first circuit used in ken winks well to the extent that it would i respectfully state that that this court has ruled otherwise in reyes v holder this court in examining  simply the commission of the offense but the actual it mission status of the individual in other words a non citizen who has never been emitted into the united states cannot be deemed deportable we are simply asking that the  court make the next logical step in that analysis and essentially the reverse that it at that a person who has been admitted into the united states cannot be deemed inadmissible unless they leave and come back ok i yes that would be the advice but that would only but that doesn't really solve the issue here the issue here is not whether he was inadmissible in two thousand and fifteen  the issue is what's the date that we use here the date for the due for the two thousand and nine or the earlier conviction right all we he's being stopped right and the reason that he's not admitted is what you're describing not the date that he became a person who could not be admitted anymore to the united states right it would become the date that it would be the date that he could  be determined inadmissible and there's a reason that the that that customs immigration customs enforcement didn't charge him as removable in one nine hundred ninety nine after the first conviction and that's because they couldn't they couldn't while he was here they couldn't charge him as inadmissible to the united states they could only do so when he left and came back and so that should be the operative date of when his continuous press residence in the united states may please the court victoria braga appearing on behalf of the attorney general the court should deny the petition for a view as the agency found the petitioners nine hundred ninety nine and two thousand and ten controlled substances convictions subjected him to treatment offense if he could be or become inadmissible for the commission of the offense so in saying that the board is contemplating that he may not at that time be seeking admission but might later be seeking an admission and would be inadmissible at that time the fifth circuit which did cite matter of her has extensively analyzed the issue and as you pointed out did decide against the  petitioner in that case and would have decided against the petitioner here in that in that case they were considering a petitioner who was not even seeking admission to the united states and they were just asking whether such a person  oh i think the issue in herat that the alien was raising is that he was being rendered inadmissible or deportable because of an offense that was not charged as the basis of his could be used to stop time so they they were answering the question about the stop time rule and they did answer the question affirmatively saying that even though an ambien is not charged as deportable or r because of the offense that he committed the offense could still stop his time and extending that analysis here it would stand that the date of commission here even though they were addressing it in a different context yes it they were addressing it in a different context but they were deciding when to stop time rule needed to apply so the question was phrased to the cia differently than it is here because in that case they were talking about how he was charged and because he was not charged as removable because of the offense that was stopping time to be i had deportable and i'm not i'm not sure and i don't know that there would be a distinction because the terms of the stop time rule the time is stopped when the commits an offense that renders him either inadmissible or deportable so even if the offense that they had been discussing there had rendered him deportable it was just about the time to figure out when the times that when the time stopped correct would be understandable if you are unfamiliar with it but i wondered if you had any response to what he had to say it's from what i can remember from his argument it sounded like that case was addressing the difference or the distinction between certain instances to people inside the country and the grounds of the portability which are applied to people inside the country so the stop time will serve simply references both classes of people and both types of offenses  but it doesn't it doesn't draw distinction as it seemed that the court was discussing in the race case and so because in this because the petitioner's time it was halted in one thousand nine hundred nine which was only two years after he had entered the united states the lawful permanent resident he would not have acquired the requisite seven years of continuous presence to qualify for cancellation of removal and the board would therefore be correct to not reopen his proceedings to allow him to seek that type of relief so with that if there are no it from two thousand and thirteen in this court and in that case the court reviewed the instance of a non citizen who come to the us without lawful admission ten years after a conviction in new york for misdemeanor menacing the government put him into removal proceedings saying that he was present in the u s without status or lawful admission the b i a ruled that his conviction rendered him deportable under section two thirty seven in the ira this court disagreed stating that the petitioner could not be deemed deportable because he was never actually it made it into the united states so the the the logical extension of that is that there are two classes of of non citizens there are those who have been admitted and that there are those who are not immediate and you cannot be more than one at the same time i don't understand that it means that he is not deportable right it doesn't mean he's not inadmissible particularly if the issue is not is he inadmissible something that might be adjudicated at the time of seeking admission but has he been rendered inadmissible by a crime that he has committed that's what this statute is about r is not concerned with that you know there's a distinction between people who are deportable and people who are in admissible and let's assume that rand is not someone who is inadmissible as has been rendered inadmissible by something he's done is not necessarily thereby rendered deportable i don't see what that has to do with the issue before us which is the timing of the stop i'm rule which is not an issue in rand's right but the issue in radius was the  which is exactly what the v i i is distinguishing and varada well your honor but the difference between renders him in a miscible and is inadmissible we don't see any difference between the well you don't see any difference but the not just because it's wrong although it is but because it this court's reasoning in re is applies equally well the reason that risk a once again the reason that the petitioner was not charged as  what that essentially from that moment on he is inadmissible if he ever leaves and tries to come back he will be adjudicated inadmissible right because he was rendered inadmissible by the crime he committed but he would be deemed inadmissible at the time that he sought to come in would be found inadmissible at the time he sought to come in and so they would say you may not be admitted we will not admit you because you are inadmissible in fact you've been missing for years it's just we never had occasion to deal with it because you weren't trying to be admitted but what that would essentially do is create a situation where a lawful permanent resident who is legally allowed to travel freely is what would basically be be kept within that the united states that's what the overruling of the flutie doctrine does it puts i put such a person in that position wrecked but then the issue is when that becomes a person is deemed inadmissible so essentially he is someone who would be eligible for citizenship because this is not something that is non defense that would render him unable to apply for citizenship but he would be unable to travel as a permanent resident it would create it creates an extremely unusual incentive to become a citizen yes it does but it's also it's also an reasonable to hold someone hostage here for twenty thirty fifty years for a because someone could otherwise acquire sufficient time in the united states even though he would be seeking it missed the admission he would be then admissible is that the idea if he has not been had his continuous residence time in place he would be eligible and that's exactly what we're asking this court to do simply were in the end the case ultimately to the to the immigration judge who never actually made a ruling on this particular particular issue and sidestepped it and i j determined he was not eligible for cancellation because the time stopped or determined not eligible for determination because the time stopped at the time the commission of the offense and when he was presented for admission the immigration judge never made that decision correct so all we are asking is that you are man so that he can proceed with an application for cancelation removal we are not asking to ignore before the court and what was properly argued before the court was simply that issue and not the argument that we are making to the court didn't actually hear our particular argument and furthermore as the next time you might give the citation to a case that's not in your brief to your opposing counsel it will help us in our job better argument on that case and you can also notify the court in advance if you're relying on a princip