please the court brant rennison for carlo freeman like to reserve two minutes the government's position is that the second sentence of the immediate relative definition limits the first in this case however we're dealing with a spouse who is a first sentence spouse within that definition the definition in eight us code eleven fifty one the second sentence of that immediate relative definition sets out a separate and distinct so petitioning right not seen in the first sentence it deals with an alien spouse who was married at least two years in we're not dealing with that situation in this case that is that section does not modify or limit the first sentence in this case there was an adjustment of status application filed along with the petition by the us citizen admissibility issue because she was it made it just they deport ability aspect and we don't believe that she has waited for that portion particularly because she also applied for adjustment the two years came into effect in one nine hundred eighty six in the marriage product amendments and in various places in the act the odd thing is that if mrs freemen had been approved for her adjustment of status one day prior to her husband's staffed she would be a permanent resident and she would have been married less than two years at the time of his death the government's position when i could be that they could take that status way  further spouses who are married for less than two years also have a waiver provision that two years the two year of firemen is just really in this case leading us down a path that we don't have to go down because the terms of the statute she does not fall within that that coverage government to approve this application but for the court to ask the government to exercise its discretion it has not done so in this case we asked that the court give direction to the government that it can exercise discretion because it's the government's position that it cannot that is was so trepidation that i launch into this argument because i spent yesterday reading the real id act and as the court knows you have to examine your jurisdiction at every stage of the proceedings so i cannot go without mentioning them the fact that does the real i d act apply to this particular situation and i'm not sure i can tell you the answer to that the real i d act basically took away two the this court has recently cited three cases covering the issue that wasn't covered in the other notes to the legislation with regard to cases that were on appeal in this court has held review that is what you have decided but then the next question becomes that statute says the review is limited to the administrative records and i think there's enough evidence in this before this record you have and the statutes allow this was the district director decision and the question you have to resolve i think is under eight u s c eleven eighty seven waiver does the term in the second paragraph saying that when it's going back for the one hundred then truth might remember me to the i j a so i believe the agency would need to file a notice of action which would cause it to go the immigration service and there would be a determination about the waiver and whether or not her up lying were actually her husband applying for a high one thirty petition by analogy is a relative and whether or not the i one forty five could or should have been granted i have never read a case to that effect and i would think not because it is well the i one thirty as a document that basically is given to folk we used to call the immigration i asked and now you call the service is a document that go has a spouse of a citizen of the united states for at least two years at the time of the services death that at least two years i believe is a qualifier for the second that you have to file within two years recent minds can differ on the reading the statute yes and then in terms i think there is a misunderstanding here in the government's reasoning about this the person doesn't have to be married for two years in order for the government to act that a government can act days weeks months however long it wants to take it to act right away on a marriage that's one day old it can prove somebody for permanent residence and i think that is a an error here i