you to explain to me why we're not obviously our sister circuit saying that our prior cases decided this exact issue doesn't require us to but it's going to me why they're wrong and how we can even reach the did discuss this within three paragraphs looking at the statute in complete isolation it did not look at the legislative history it did not look at what the terms meant it did not look at other parts of the i a e a that's why under footnote five five we recognize that the other two other circuits to consider this is the th circuit in the th has held to the contrary and in our decision we talk about that the st clause doesn't bind us even if you're right in the abstract as to the statutory construction argument under our president we can't ignore this unless there's been intervening authority that calls did not have which mr snow day which is it never asked whether a child who was living in the united states with legal so that it had the objective intent to reside here as contemplated narrowly and the court in that case couldn't reach the result that it did there while writing an opinion the didn't address the issue that you're not presenting to us but the opinion they actually wrote i'm just looking at your at the very actively pursued that application when his mother made it what with what she said a lot of increase to the status of that case and i think the rd factor is that that application is a bonafide one it was actually granted when he was eighteen basis to show that he was legally in the united states and had an objective intent to reside there permanently counsel you don't have to address this right now but i want to make sure that you have this in either before or after as long as it occurred one or the other that it's been good but but but council cleaning aside for a moment the question of whether it's finding on us and i've you agree that in that case is involved in this case does that mean that you agree that it reached the statutory construction argument and agreed with her that there would be no need to transfer this is to the district court or any that same's when it used to completely different terms in the statute lawful admission for permanent residence and begins to reside permanently i mean your statutory construction argument is that they meet in exactly the same th don't courts have to make those factual findings in a variety of different contexts when looking at diversity of citizenship don't courts often have to side where somebody is a citizen and resident based on  new statute knows how to not use two different terms when they want them to mean the same thing i understand your honor and that it because this factor corey construct and the grand scheme of things to come home make my of that this is george miller may i ask if we agree with you on the derivative citizenship issue or i can you just clarify your by correct that it is your so there are certain convictions in grounds that are most likely are not off no longer removal removal convictions but it was a repeat of still property conviction it is a categor two and eighty one and put kutas there the court did what i'm asking this court computer which is to step aside step aside a prior publish decision because they're the cutest and that the kaiser illuminant case that to follow that procedure he there the nd point my brother misstated by saying that who knows what permanently means other than it can't mean temporary congress has disagreed congress has clearly defined what permanent means in the i an eight which is that eleven o y and a thirty one and this means it's a relationship of continuing our last nature even if it can be extinguished by the alien or the we discussed whether we would oz the choir supplemental briefing so the final case