two thirty seven a three d for having made a false claim of u s citizenship allegedly for the purpose of gaining an immigration benefit or benefit under any federal or state law the first charge regarding the aggravated felony related to a one thousand nine hundred five narcotics conviction and his eligibility to apply for a waiver under former section three twelve she was never contested at the court however the immigration judge specifically found that specifically state whether or not it would have affected matters which post ira the courts generally have not favored an expansion of st cyr to cover post ira ira convictions but one of things in this case we don't have a conviction here we don't i mean all we have is a form that he filled out of the sporting goods store so this here here there's no there's no allegation that he's committed a felony in fact they can't even well this issue was raised by the well first of all he's never he he pled and he contested the grounds of remove abil or something that doesn't change on appeal there are a one time event and there are matter of fact which which you know if he had said that he was not removable that wouldn't change on appeal and he can't change the pleadings it has always been government you know just say we agree with the immigration judge and have a one or two sentence argument as they sometimes do they went and numbered their arguments and one of the objects that they want to get mentioned was the purpose  from the here they made a streamlining decision under far one zero zero three point one four where they just said we agree with the immigration judge's decision and you know  expertise and the creation of a record are satisfied when issues are fully presented to the final agency decision maker and when they do streamlining the final decision maker is the immigration judge that's quite used to that position it's an interesting position but i if he would have said nothing he would have he would have qualified for a firearm it's the government's position initially that this argument to the extent that petitioner argues that the benefit needs to be specified by the government or that receiving the firearm by petitioners only admission and by withholding that he had been convicted for and i provided felony he following the statute verbatim their legal permanent resident card and travel that side of the united states and was trying to come back and that since they didn't have their legal permanent resident card presented somebody else is first to defecate in order to come back into the country in the but he might be right that the man would not sound the gun unless he claimed to be a citizen he might have had friends who knew that the man didn't sell them a gun i mean so it is not merely a subjective thing could be based and actually sit at the bottom why they asked the question because it says if you're not a citizen of the united states you have a state of residence only if you resided in the stage for at least ninety days cry from the date is this you know i don't know you know that's a strange rule but that's why they're asking the question does not specifically make the argument that that is being made here today and to the extent that the petitioner is claiming that the streamlining practice of streamlining streamlining in this case or affirming with and they do does make the argument that this was for a purpose or benefit under nevada law because he specifically cites the oral decision of the immigration judge it at five which is in the record at page thirty nine where the judge specifically