voice up so the people in the room can hear yes yes your honor we ask that the corps reverse the decision of the board of immigration appeals the board relied on its decision in matter of somewhere on molina in deciding this case and the board's decision was made in error and the board was wrong for three reasons the first is that the board mistakenly transferred the petition of the beneficiary to the first category preference when it should have remained in the second category preference the second section or sorry the per france category today the second reason the board made a mistake is because if a conversion if a conversion does did take place it should have been converted as an immediate relative petition instead of a first preference petition the third reason why the board also made a mistake is because when the board concluded that the petition was moved to the first preference category it also concluded that the petitioner sorry that the beneficiary could not opt out from the conversion and we believe that if he had been converted that the beneficiary did have a right to opt out of the conversion  and as far as the first reason why the board is wrong and the preference category that the petition should or remained in is that to a preference category the reason is because eight u s c section eleven fifty seven f one which is the mandatory conversion statute that applies when a parent of a parent of a child in a to a preference category naturalizes that section only specifies that it titian initially filed  be category is to be converted to the first preference category if the beneficiary is twenty one years or older at the date of the naturalization of the petitioning parent and it if the board didn't rely or really look at that statute in deciding that there was to be a conversion to the first preference category instead of the board relied on fart she was there a four point two little lie too and that regulation is inconsistent with the statute and it's inconsistent most biological age what is your best argument your honor and i believe that or i know that congress wanted to help so they wanted to subtract the pending the time the time that is pending in educating a petition from a beneficiaries age and the c s p a wanted all its sections to work harmoniously together so and section level fifty three each one directs how to calculate the statutory age for a beneficiary that has a petition that was initially filed under the f two a category however it doesn't say that visa becomes available then as the u s supreme court inquiry are they also states that that's when you calculate the age at that point but then we look at how to calculate the beneficiaries age because a visa now is available so we calculate the age when the parent naturalizes he's under twenty one and at that point we then go into another statute and that statute is eight u s c eleven fifty one f two from that statute we see that if a child is under twenty one then he becomes a beneficiary of a new media relative petition when the parent naturalizes so because we want to make sure that all the sections work together then i believe that there is a way to make it work so that because he is an adult child of a united states citizen there currently he is tell you what bothers via about this seems to me that congress is clearly expresses intent that no prospective immigrant provision in two thousand and one and it's called the sunset date april thirtieth of two thousand and one was a date in which hundreds of thousands of visa petitions were filed by individuals in the united states because their ability to adjust after that date as someone in the united states was going to expire the the processing time for those visa applications was lengthy in this case it was four years and stilling think it is still in the it's better but it's it's still  lengthy and so the child status protection act was enacted to protect the children that lost that status purely based on u s a s says processing time of that these as a supreme court recognized in oh the child status protection act does not allow someone to remain a child forever it does not protect them as a child during the wait time for a visa to become available it only protects them as a child during the time that that processing the u s a s processing occurred now in this case it becomes very fuzzy because allowing that four years applying the four years to this individual depending on which preference category you try to apply it to could help them or it could not help if you were to use this statutory day correct but if you look at eleven fifty one and two is where the naturalization day comes then and one is where the statutory date comes then under section one it specifically says except as provided in paragraphs two and three so reading af as one two and three as a whole you look and say well what are the rules for determining whether a certain individual is an immediate relative and you look to see which of these three subsections apply while as one says except as provided in paragraphs two and three and two says if the parent naturalizes used that date of the age on the nationalization it does not refer back to the calculation section as the paragraph above the age of the  different ways to do that what he said to me and but that first effort to see if the statute viewed as a whole makes sense and it makes sense to say statutory age where it didn't because this particular individual does not get to take advantage of the child size protection act because the statute itself does not specify chronological age versus the age calculation under a different section of i don't generally like to anticipate what what may happen in the future but i think there is certainly a growing view that we ought to just look to the statute and try to make what it seems a more logical interpretation of the statute in soho so we would want to look beyond that to all these other things that fall into this but this is steam these days we could make sense of the statute by interpreting it to mean where they didn't specify his gender the statute was actually nineteen as of the day his father became a citizen so if you looked at his statutory age as of that day he was eligible at every especially on i disagree that the statute is clearly if you look under each of the provisions of the child status protection act there is not one that clearly applies to the situation there is not one the clearly applies to someone who was under twenty one when their lawful permanent resident parent filed a petition then turned twenty was so if you look at the date of the naturalization and so if you're looking at the data visa may become available so if you look at the date of a naturalization for someone that you look at that date and nothing in the child status protection act if you look at the bill itself nothing in it says someone who automatically become somebody who is over twenty one can retain that child status to become an immediate relative under the child protection act it says somebody who has a long visa petition time isn't going to be harmed by that that wait time so that nothing one single section of the statute applies to someone who's been waiting for fifteen years for their visa to become available based on a lawful permanent resident father and perhaps as an oversight from congress and in writing the statute at the at the front end but it doesn't apply to this case which is what makes it unfortunate that the clear terms of the way the statute is written allows individuals who are minor children to  that age during the processing time it allows individuals who are children still when their parents naturalized to become an immediate relative but this individual wasn't a child still when his father naturalized it allows individuals who are adult children over twenty one of a lawful permanent resident who's parent later naturalizes to get the benefit of any wait time and have a show and be able to take advantage of a shorter wait time depending on the visa preference category but it does not allow someone who is now thirty three years old to take a visa from someone who is who could be eight years old right now that's what happened is that this individual were given  your honor i do believe that the statutes for c s p do provide an a way of or what to do when this type of scenario so eleven fifty three h one directs how to calculate the age for a beneficiary who has a petition initially filed for him in the f two a category and it is so after the calculation and it also says in that statute went to calculate the age so when a visa is available so when the parent naturalized visa became available at that point you can calculate the age and the age would be under twenty one and then you go under another c s p a section where it that and it even refers to the f two a category where it states that if the parent naturalized and the beneficiary is under the age of twenty one then he now ho has an immediate visa available to him and the petition converts to an immediate relative petition i just as how do you square the fact that the provision governing immediate relative stat say i believe that because the statutes need to be read to work together then they have to be in harmony together and in the  doesn't say that if the with the beneficiary has to become a resident a president through the two a category instead it just directs how to calculate the age and when to calculate