states for the purposes of the relief that he see my client as a citizen and national of mexico he received his legal residency in one thousand that two thousand and six and shortly thereafter approximately six years he suffered a conviction for a controlled substance crimes actually two of them removal proceedings commenced thereafter and in those proceedings he applied for cancellation of removal that relief requires him to show that he has been a legal resident for five years that he for seven years he had continuously resided in the united states after being admitted in any status and that he had not suffered a conviction that con purposes if you had been stopped of the border or i mean where you through do you have any basis for which he could have been legally admitted it's our fact you know what what is it that he was ten years old i'm he would testify that he recalls entering the united states that he was in a car that was stopped by immigration official that immigration official questioned the driver and that driver responded to those questions and that immigration official waved the court through and he and the occupants of the car i don't think your answer my question states based on the representations that were made he had no were not intended that he had any documentation that would have allowed him to enter the united states and i'm sure you say the commentator as opposed to status of facts i mean  the respect for your honor the relief that we're seeking doesn't require a lawful admission at all in fact all it requires is that he be admitted in any status and there have been courts that have recognized admissions and had help people accountable for admissions   this is an individual who was admitted as a legal permanent resident it was a mistake he tried to use that mistake for the purposes of applying for relief in front of the immigration court in the type of waiver that he was seeking to  that case some for his holder ok because i recall that the dissent from the denial of the petition for rehearing in bank in the fifth circuit relied extensively on our and yes as lawful entry lawful the sense that you've been admitted as opposed to somebody who's surreptitiously entered the country i'm sorry you're fine admission as the fence he did not sneak into the border he he was actually presented at a port of entry tennessee trial and he was permitted to physically enter the united states legally there may have been something to the issues with that so that's another thing would that make a difference i mean given that even some minor he was a minor he was in the custody in the care of a relative that relative we believe had legal status to enter the united inspected by an immigration official and he was not allowed to enter the united states that in of itself is a lawful admission now whether or not he had a substantive status in terms of whether or not he had documents that allowed him to gain that lawful admission is in this case or all of that is the response position ok so have you filed a surfer titian in the fifth circuit case as a government filed one before the supreme court i believe there are other personnel in my office are working on that for petitioner i am not i'm not asking if you're working on and i'm asking you whether you filed one r and r is the government intending to file one not to my own which i it's being considered here but i'm have not five  not run yet correct and you're there the government is considering whether or not to file a petition for cert rather i've been told that correct there or not if they don't file  mean you said the government intends possibly to take inconsistent positions in the fifth the ninth circuit right if that if that circuit session is filed and clearly we would be advocating for a decision here in the ninth contrary to the a certain particularly status but there is no category for unlawful status as recognized in the i and it clearly there is your honor yes however in those instances in my research at least it refers exclusively to legal descriptions contained in the i in any that allow defined classes of aliens again immigrants or nonimmigrants  lawfully within the united states and it refers exclusively to those categories the phrase basically denotes a requirement or condition that an alien must maintain before applying for a the word lawful in front of said yes sure but we don't believe that that supports the petitioners interpretation of the statute at issue here to mean that any status denotes unlawful were undocumented individuals in this country as i was i was trying to argue a little earlier lawful status is using the irony mainly to describe a requirement or condition that an alien must maintain prior to applying for a benefit for example the t p s temporary protected status need lawful nonimmigrant status required to apply indeed maintenance of lawful status required to adjust the l p r status under twelve twenty five a and c another example out of the eye and they would be foreign born children who enter the united states to pursue citizenship they must have been lawfully admitted and maintained it was awful status prior to their application for the benefit and for example you are on lawful status is used at least in my research uniquely and the reason for the reference to unlawful status in that context is obvious those here lawfully need not resort to the ams the law and can use the regular immigration channels unlawful status means for rather your honor one who has was procedurally regular so the respondent agrees with petitioner on this point it was an admission for the purposes of the statutory definition that the site mentioned earlier however under the rules of statutory construction the court is required to construe status would sort of make it clear to you that we're talking about illegal as well as legal and so you wish reaching position sort of here  sometimes words to use emphasis it may not actually be necessary but to point out that it's not only in a legal status but it's in anything yes yes respectfully disagree or perhaps a congress meant what you're suggesting they would have stated regardless of status but to adopt the petitioners construction here and to answer your question your honor to get rid of the tissues construction basically means seven years after being admitted but it  states wife a citizen his father's an l p r and lives here is paid his taxes nineteen years after he was waved in it's a kind of case i think that sometimes is deemed appropriate for mediation just see if it's one that the government really wants to pursue whether it might be influenced by the equities do you have any  to correct you know at the moment thank you thank you that based on the the procedures that are typical at the border that he was admitted as an immigrant and that's that's when that's something he would like the opportunity to demonstrate but back to the issue of so you think that when people are wave modifier to the admission and i believe congress is trying to do instead of listing each and every status that anybody could possibly receive by being admitted they very efficiently gave us the words in any status whatever status that maybe but they ha there is are any any lawful status for which your client or the point i think the issue is that he was granted the status or he would not have been admitted to begin with there's no such thing as being admitted and they're not being as you can see yes that's always an option on your honor's reason being that this is a particularly sympathetic case in which to make this legal point which