and while his appeal was pending he departed the united states the board of immigration appeals concluded that under eight c f r section three point four that his departure  for brief casual and innocent departures the district court erred when it concluded that had jurisdiction over the case and it also erred when it declined to defer to the reasonable interpretation of the board of doesn't have any sort of doesn't apply to current cases in the sense that someone who was put in proceedings today who got an order and who left the country in sort of these factual circumstances when i was sixteen when apply the review provisions now are under u s c section twelve fifty two are women my question is do you have any idea of the numbers you can answer part of the question you've told us the world of people i'm sorry i wouldn't answer hazard to guess the numbers i mean there are you know literally thousands and thousands of sort of if you will all the cases that are still in in the pipeline so i mean there is a potentially large universe but to the sort of the circumstances the flu which was a person who if he hadn't even sort of walked over the border would have been able to stay here without any question now the the mr challenge this case  it seems to me in light of those cases in light of the board's sort of discretion here in light of what the supreme court said about the deference to immigration seems to begin with that fact conclusion it was a reasonable one what's the operative word  honor and the operative word here is departure that's correct and what's the difference well i think the reason the difference between the two i guess they are related concepts but the fifth circuit difference if it was a temporary national or whatever you step across the line you're done but they didn't both of them involve actually being in the country that's  in deportation proceedings must do so knowingly and intelligently that principle however is fundamentally at odds with the board's conclusion in this case that mr charles somehow withdrew his appeal by departing this country on a five day vacation trip to canada because it's lawyer has the list in her file is that an innocent departure when we charge the alien with knowing that you're at the ins has never argued that this departure was other than brief casual are innocent the issue here makes some sense when it's applied to someone who entered the united states illegally or stems from a no because the law a permanent resident like mr chadwick's been here for some twenty two years he's been able to travel for twenty two years under the regulations one point one p a permanent resident continues until the board enters a final or deportation against him how would you how do you compare your client's position to the client brief departure from the country which the service argued interrupted the seven years required continuous residence yes it wasn't continuous residence but continuous physical presence and it was an individual who would never three i believe this regulation came it's a fact following your nine hundred sixty four going back to the fate of this poor lawyer shall says that his attorney advised him against traveling outside of the united states that's fluting and there's nothing in chevron or any other supreme court case to suggest that the courts need to defer to administrative agencies in terms of interpret ing supreme court precedent which is the critical issue in this case but moreover when the board rendered its decision in this case it never asked whether the regulation was compatible with the statutory scheme and it ignored the fact that its interpretation of the regulation and its application of that regulation in this particular case raises serious con