page thirty one in and then them to our opening brief so this case will involve section two twelve each of the immigration and nationality act which gives an immigration judge discretion to waive certain crime bas an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence if that person has an aggravated felony conviction since the date of his or her admission maybe you can help me with this but it seems like and again i'm not sure not this is the chevron ambiguity  i guess a couple points about that in terms of i agree that a person who does not qualify as didn't who came in and did not want to make that it wasn't it was sort of overlooked in a reply brief but i do think it's important and that is congress totally separate and independent pending ground of inadmissibility in the immigration nationality act so committing fraud or for misrepresentation to gain admission is a completely separate independent grounded in mrs willoughby with a completely separate and independent waiver of inadmissibility that is a way to seek relief from removal so i think the way that  congress is trying to deal with those kind of fraud cases was it was dealing with it at a state with a separate provision had a separate standard for o'keefe reback of the industry run would you agree that chevron applies in this case and if it does how do you can run diallo we don't well yes i agree mr chief judge in the sense that chevron does apply to the board interpretations issue in the sense that it has we think that imposes two conditions one what we call a manner of entry condition which is from that has previously been admitted cause and secondly an independent immigration status condition which is in the as an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence costs with and we think the only way that chevron could apply chief judge mckee i think is if the court were to find ambiguity in the term off wait a minute for permanent residence that is if there were enough sort of chevron play in the joints of that term what it would if that's not in big u s but when we read it in conjunction with  where we discuss it our brief in our brief there was a section of the i need that required that a person have been quote admitted as a nonimmigrant the board had been interpreted that was a nine hundred fifty eight version of section two forty five a of the act the board had interpret in that provision to require substantive compliance with the the immigration status in the as cause that is as a bonafide a not an immigrant congress apparently was unhappy with that board itself discusses this it didn't want the board where the immigration authorities inquiring into whether there was substantive compliance with the immigration status in the assholes and the way it expressed its way with congress expressed itself after frankly just citing that it didn't want we're doing that is that remove the as plus immigration status cause that is remove the as a bonafide an immigrant cause so i think congress understood that the presence or absence of an ass plus immigration cause is what drives the analysis of whether the border the immigration those provisions worst passed sensually roughly the same time by the same congress and i don't think that there is any way that you know congress would have intended those provisions to see as why would not be interpreted as meaning as well or as if he were legal when he came here as opposed to just i mean i think because it doesn't have the as judge jones i mean i think congress went in there with very specific language with very technical terms that congress itself defined and i think it was setting forth requirements with that like i don't think that the porch and read that  that they made a mistake here because the bit looking at the text of the statute in that circuit basically made two points one was a technical point and one was a policy point the technical point was well if we accept the petitioners reading that case that would render that emitted as an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence cause that would render if we required it to require we read that language to require compliance with substantive compliance with the immigration stat immigration status in the ass has previously been in the cause and that has completely separate independent meaning from what the board thought it did in iowa and what the ninth circuit thought it would have some in all three of those courts found that as a matter of chevron step one that that was the way the statute should be type of argument was made to try to support a claim that the distinction between off current residence and not a lawful permanent residence that allowing unlawful presence to seek this relief effectively puts them in a better position than people who came awfully and you know i'm judge rosen for the court said it look you know it's not good policy it's might be irrational it might be unfair might be unwise but it's the choice that congress made and there could be rational reasons for that decision i thought you would cite to the circuit court cases that are said it's not an absurd result i mean you familiar with linear and i mean the fifth circuit the ninth circuit fifth and eleventh of absolutely yes said this is not absurd right i mean exactly absolutely it's a little odd though but they've conjured up some reasons why it might not be observed for example in order to adjust to lawful permanent resident status you might have been here for a long time you might have extensive family ties et i don't know how we don't find any ambiguity here when we read admitted we read the whole thing together when your arguments seem to to a very sort of strategically focused on lawfully admitted for permanent residen and it didn't it's sort of avoided correct me if i'm wrong that the previously been admitted part because that that seems undermine your argument what am i missing there you know to try and i think we focused on get admitted the person makes it presents himself to an immigration officer at a border right and the immigration officer allows that person to enter the united states so if you if you had or without it's if you enter without inspection you're not admitted that's exactly right joe's folks that enter without inspection might try to adjust status but they're not admitted that a person who enters enters without inspection has not been admitted once they just that is that's that's sort of a question before the board and the courts of appeals about whether that and it just was the leading right here this morning i don't know if you were you were here this morning but you know it was interesting but i think a point i do want to make you know basically congress one of the first was dividing forms of relief between persons lawfully admitted for permanent residence and those who want to see my red light is i mean he's been through between basically one of persons generally speaking twelve by waiver and in effect i think what congress was doing here his was trying to balance the interests and you know removing persons non citizens with criminal convictions preventing fraud and balancing against the other policy interests of rewarding rehabilitation as in the provision or the prison provisions at issue in this case and also preserving families and i think congress is trying to compromise between two competing interests and this is the balance it's struck there are  of age whether the petitioner is an alien who has previously been admitted the united states as an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence the problem of the prisoner's argument though as it essentially tries to separate out those two elements of the of th did do that yes yes but it's a question of procedural regularity and the second element which is more based on substantive is the alien a lawful permanent resident when you look at those two in context permanent resident it's was the petitioner admitted as a lawful permanent resident and somebody can be admitted as a particular type of in a particular type of status despite the fact they're not actually eligible for that stats a person a in fact you only know for sure until the supreme court adjudicates whether the determination that he was an l p r was correct essentially yes yes that that a person can can gain entry to the united states despite not being eligible to gain the united states and so this type of statute where you have yet previously been admitted ows and l p r has to focus on what type of admission with the person the person may even if wrong correct correct granting a waiver to an alien a quote an alien who has previously been admitted to the united states as an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence that previously ben admitted doesn't have the lawful modifier it's not a residence means the status of having been lawfully accorded the privilege of residing permanently united states as an immigrant in accordance with the immigration laws such status not having changed that definition is substantive reasonable and you get in policy reasons why that essentially the petitioners argument that concealing your in eligibility for l p r status at the time you are admitted is going to be rewarded whereas better position than somebody did all the rules and again that the reason is the boards of terminations correctly take that into account there's no reason why the statute should be construed as saying that  definition which is more substantive you have a statute with these two things and in terms of reconciling them again the board i think probably made the more reasonable that it took a more reasonable approach that you focus on the admission you if you've not resided for seven years right  included that that term has a substantive only a subset of compliance component second there's a little bit of i just want to clarify our position we do sort of think that the statute imposes two separate conditions a manner of entry condition and an immigration status condition but we think congress is the one that congress separated out those two requirements because it is the term previously admitted which is it is its own concept and can't congress expressly define that concept and also the term off waited for permanent residence which is a separate concept which congress define separately so we think that congress separated out those two requirements third in terms of whether he was he had the status of being off we admitted for presents when he entered the united