acknowledge that congress expressly made those bases retroactive but they claim that congress didn't consider the impact of the j rad on defend it's who had received one that argument borders on frivolous frankly because the very that j rats are ineffective as to convictions for crimes committed before on or after the date of the enactment of the act but in any event a j read only ever covered crimes relating to moral has ever argued and in fact i believe there's case law that says that even when convictions are expunged they can't it doesn't necessarily mean that the records are sealed always and sometimes they can be used for certain purposes the only question here is whether the terminal frankly and i i think that this statute which is section fourteen twenty seven of title eight and specifically fourteen twenty seven a refers to good moral character and as the court is pointing out it's the moral character during the relevant period but the once farther in its regulations and said it will decide within one hundred twenty days of the initial interview by using the word examination which fourteen forty six defines to include a bunch of things not just the interview congress show that it really intend and once you do then congress says and this is fourteen point seven the language the court quote has jurisdiction all that is he's an external aeration by the applicant of the process because of that if the applicant wanted to you know have cracks inside the agency and then wait to see what happened the applicant would know that eventually before the district court and the district court would hold a full hearing in applicants decided to avail themselves of the early opportunity to accelerate the full then overall hearing before the district court but what happens if the ins grants case precisely what i describe happened on quite a number of applicants and we held that there for their action they wanted to file a class action we held that the whole thing was group of individuals and the the discussion the analysis by by the panel was clearly the ones that dealt with whether or not this was a proper mandamus action whether it met we don't go off they don't go off on the standard of if the facts show that there was such a delay and there was the potential for more delay then the court certainly wouldn't have abused its discretion first of all but it's for me ask you about that the way when i looked at the ins decision didn't show up then his lawyer asked for rescheduling on april twenty one for me to make showed up for this lawyer didn't show up and he said he didn't want to proceed with his examination outside the presence of us lawyer then in the schedule for me thirteen his lawyer called made twelve and said he wouldn't show up thirteen and wanted a continuance he was rescheduled may twenty five the lawyer said he wouldn't be able to keep the appointment and you needed a continuance it seems to me that and this went on and on and until finally instead of appearing for you on may twenty seventh the senate notary statement  didn't answer the critical questions are you now involved with any sort of terroristic activities he has consumed and temporarily not just decades ago refused to disclose how i was reading it from the ins decision actually but let me let me focus the question for you want something that applies to all three under your theory as i understand it if the applicant for naturalization wishes to he can stall for one hundred twenty days and then when the ins has not acted because of the continuance it's that the applicant has obtained and his the applicant that if the applicant is and you can make it hypothetically if you're white if the applicant this responsible for the hundred twenty they don't weigh nevertheless he can get his naturalization determined by the district court rather than the i and i would not agree to that at all your honor and why not how do you avoid the conclusion because there are provisions in the regulations where if that happens the immigration authority can get an extension of one hundred twenty days nature to that here conviction for purposes of analyzing the portability and why wouldn't a conviction that has been expunged nonetheless be relevant to a determination of whether a all the ins has they have nothing to indicate other than rehabilitation during the five years that are in question then that prior conduct could never be dispositive now in this case there is why why shouldn't the court or whoever is doing whoever has traction why shouldn't they be able to look at a conviction in effect in a conviction even if it's more you know both have been in the record that is not really solved here and i'm looking at four zeros and then one zero in the excerpts exhibit five what happened to decades of getting the five sticks of dynamite on the he's refusing to questions that relate to his moral character if this topic is now are you now and he refuses to answer i don't see how it can be other than an abuse of discretion even if the district court has jurisdiction not to take that out where you are this was the latest appeal have three and if if you look at that item you'll see that mrs wilson even asked him questions about that and he answered them so he answered them the government clearly had a right of state if they thought to be felons of those classes to call where we introduced a number of declarations made the witnesses available made the wives available and made the clients available and all that came out was that mystery in the end was a totally transformed person who is now a moral force in the armenian american community he's the principal of an eight hundred students school he has been for ten years he's licensed as a therapist up to three thousand hours of training by the state he's an adjunct professor  characterizing the groups and asking me did i belong to one that you know a spouse terrorist thoughts are or are activities and i said no then you come after me for perjury i told you in my original application all the that it was broader than what was relevant the issue was did you belong to any such organization during the last ten years and the question was at any time in the past that was like an old house un american activities question also took are you now or have you ever been versus pierce county and that one the statutes that the secretary of the relevant agency secretary of labor quote shall close quote issue a final determination as to misuse of days and if he doesn't the supreme court reversed it said no the secretary keeps jurisdiction even though the secretary has reached the mandatory one hundred twenty day deadline thing appears to be this that when as here there are less drastic remedies available for failure to meet a statutory deadline courts should not assume that congress intended the agency to lose its retroactive because the question was posed to the client was whether to be sentenced under the youth corrections act or whether to be sentenced as an adult and the decision was based on the availability of  the convictions that we were talking about that would fall under the crime the more that any event because of st cyr consideration itself expectations especially when there is a retroactive application of what the government in fact this is another just for you to have with mr light what he says that the government never attempted to introduce or listed in any way information about these terrorist organizations the government didn't the government tried to submit report from the state department that addressed these organizations both the ones that the defendants had spent a long to do in their application and once the government had reason to believe that they had belonged to the defendants objected and the district court sustain the object clear to the aliens benefit to have concurrent jurisdiction so that they get a resolution to their application as quickly as possible is clearly what congress intended this court in the the reno case recognize the strong preference that congress