receive protection and allows for employees to come to the united states but most importantly it allows families to be reunified in the united states in the live together as families now in that context the ninth circuit decided legal permanent resident and you may ask why didn't the son become a legal permanent resident at the same time because he was subject to a family preference system and as a child of a legal permanent resident he had to wait for a visa because the quarters had run out there was insufficient visas for him but then that speak to the issue that in fact the lawyer makes it the existence of that provision makes it pretty clear that the fact that your parent has lawful status child lives with the parents under the same roof the b should be afforded the opportunity for the parents into thier residence of the word lawful enters into it so that in your first case peculiar but certainly possible where the where the child was actually back in mexico with the parents are here and this becomes domicile all morning the principles of common law which is how the statute then called upon us to define looking around he may be a resident in the united states but that doesn't make him a lawfully resident if because you've already described the law requires him to stand in line until it's his turn with the approved the use of pick to come in and so country but didn't have focus upon the intent to show and and whether the intent of the parents should be visited on the child because of the child's inability to form awful and that's correct wrong but likewise in this circumstance and that's why i go back to my argument that potentially congress made it easier in order just to the residence to a child because it took out the intent requirement residing in the united states there's there's an application process that he is charged with even though he's a child is there yes there is but if we go back to let you draw on and these are the similar i mean they're almost mean they were focused on domicile but lawful resident has a very clear meaning under the immigration law he doesn't have it himself now i understand the argument is that he gets it through his mother but he doesn't alien resided in the united states continuously for seven years after having been admitted in the status of its second prong the second requirement that we're concentrating on because he absolutely fulfills the first requirement there is no stop law definition of domicile because domicile was not defined in the eye and so the court looked at the common law definition which emphasized intent and the court found that a child is legally incapable of forming intent no intent isn't necessary anymore cancellation of removal every only and must have seven years of continuous physical presence after having been awful in it so that's one aspect of the issue the difference between the definitions he waited in line and went through the past process he became an l t r he could stay here lawfully with his mother four years later he did something that lawful permanent resident status he committed the crime that made him removable from the united states keeping families together and  made a big issue of the fact that my client entered the united states illegally but that was not a choice she was a child at the time and i think it's also important to note that there are numerous provisions in the act which allow people who  spike despite the fact that they entered without documents fear the law doesn't say as an alternative to the requirements to be eligible for the cancellation or could have regularized your status as sometime in the past but failed to avail yourself of the opportunity is especially harsh in the context of children because minors can't act for themselves but congress could provide for that and it doesn't appear the congress has provided for them and congress didn't provide for  well we do weddings to