and he was placed in deferred inspection he tried to enter in seattle they moved his diverted inspection to the spokane office because that was closer to his home in leavenworth it was a mix  could apply to adjust status the judge granted him that request and said that if he did get the paperwork satisfactory to the court the court would terminate proceedings on january  parole would allow mr zak kriegel to adjust status at a certain point the judge said i'm not going to continue in this matter and he's closer and i and i don't have jurisdiction to adjust status in this case what deferred inspection this parole here was more expansive than a document allowing for multiple although the document was restricted in time to the period when mr zucker it was an exclusion proceedings inadmissibility to do among other things a just just status so i took my submission is this is not a temporary parole for going further inspection this was a specific parole which did allow him very that's correct and and well that's that's the basis of which he's tried to adjust to status and in fact while these proceedings were going on the the immigration service in seattle was was acting consistent with what the processing of this case towards adjustment of status first they they granted him even though the parole document says that he can't be granted employ authorization the next day the immigration service rarely prole offers i mean employment authorization then they came in for interviews in order for him to adjust the status as the husband s citizen and he was granted or his wife was granted the petition in his behalf the media relative petition in july so he was processing in that direction and that but that  all it was it was to some extent was stymied because of the procedures here what they did the night i think it was in april of this year they night the reason why i apologize for not paying a to close attention that the reason why i didn't in part is because in this case the judge didn't even reach the issue of moral turpitude because he says i have no jurisdiction but he didn't take a situation happened years ago back in the early one nine hundred eighty s it had to do with his business of his work in the restaurant business since that time he's with his wife he's opened up a successful a large and successful restaurant in leavenworth with a with a german motif and and he's had no criminal record since so while the judge looked at that and said your equities look very favorable it please the court my name is lisa watts and i represent the attorney general in this case to begin with i'd like to clarify the secretaries are they in turn general's position in this case there is very which according to the service and it's noticed it appeared he never appeared from or he was never admitted into this country under that deferred expection now after that time after he was placed in proceeding alien at the time and left so whatever you know the rights he had at that time he voluntarily forfeited when he left the contrary he was an illegal alien who applied for legalization under the one nine hundred eighty so he was an illegal alien when he left and he was indeed legal alien and when he tried to come back you know he was and not legally was an alien seeking admission when he tried to come back here so that's the way it sets up is that we're deciding not that you're deciding the only issue on appeal and that's on the record of page twenty four of the petitioners brief you specified that the only issue is whether that i j had correctly determined that he did not have probably trump ages twenty to thirty but i could i could look that up in your honor has told me this he may know more in this case than i do about this particular issue regarding his legalization but i'm going to look into it under the i believe it's the catholic social services decision there may have been an error in the way his legalization if you don't know i don't know but i will i will look into that one thing i just want to say that's that's also a concern that i raised in my brief is the fact that the immigration judge recognize status with a prole document that would say specifically you can apply for a just right and the trial when mr de la spoke to the trial attorney about this on september fourteenth she wrote a letter to the immigration