grandparent falls within the definition of a child and basically what the government is requesting this court is to ignore the notion the legal notion in the state of california of what legal permanent custody yes and i would submit to the court that legal permanent custody or guardianship under california is basically the same as a natural parent's rights or an adoptive parents rights a guardian has the responsibility to provide for their child for the children they have the responsibility to care for them to provide an education essentially for for these purposes is virtually the same responsibilities that carry natural parents and such as the one at this case also take into account the fact that that cancellation of removal is the remedy available for non residents but really to protect the interest and the welfare of  i don't believe i have anything more to say you have a little bit of time left for rebuttal we'll hear from the attorney general th properly before the court for the court to consider the issues that were presented by the five by mr green i mean ron say his appeal to the b i a were first that the legal guardianship sufficed to make the his grandchildren qualifying relatives the second was that the grandchildren should be deemed qualifying relatives one as my colleague explains the provision that refers to orphans refers to alien children who are being adopted by u s citizen parents or parents taking the position that his grandchildren should be viewed as qualifying relatives for the reasons that i've identified and to be a qualifying relative you had to be a child that's correct that's correct yes that you have to be the aliens child in his head his reasoning was that until mr moran a mirage he was able to successfully adopt these children he was not their parent and because he wasn't their parent they were his child and you know i think it's kind of merits of this case this is controlled by hector which says that the the definition of child for purposes of cancellation of removal is something that congress has paid very close attention to and has addressed in detail it's the court's responsibility to follow the plain language of the statute not and in hector the court specifically rejected the proposition there should be some sort of functional  the actual relationship between the between the cancellation or suspension applicant and the minor who is claimed to be a child and heck it was nice and it was so clear that the supreme court s i mean congress has spelled out the terms and they get you whether a guardianship as opposed to an adoption makes a difference is something that congress has has has  recognize and the b a was not even given an opportunity to address in fact i might add to the arguments about the fact that the nature of the custodial arrangement under california law and what that really means also was not presented to the immigration judge or to the board of immigration appeals the arguments before the immigration judge after after the department of homeland security declined to agree to an administrative closure was that his his relationship to functionally be treated as as establishing a qualified relative status without any more elaboration of what the terms were under california law the immigration judge addressed that by saying you know if you are not a parent that and they're not your qualifying r immigration before the immigration judge your honor i can't recall but i what why do i can recall it is that that was precisely the issue whether or not a qualifying relative and this case we had his grandchildren the only i did not now in terms of section one one b b subsection as i'm just not convinced that congress really intended to include or protect foreign orphans but not u s citizen orphans specifically when we're looking at it in the context of cancellation of removal where again the statute is meant to either remedy for the foreign person but really to protect the interest and welfare of their relatives members of that nonresident u s citizens and residents who doesn't make any sense that congress has clearly did not intend to include were talking about cancellation but more importantly there was a a close resemblance to a parent child relationship in that case in this case we have full legal parental guardianship issued by the state of california that has to have a meaning and what the government is basically asking this court to do is to flatly ignore it as it doesn't exist it doesn't apply if we read the plain language that means permanent legal guardianship has absolutely no value and i don't think congress really intended to do that