which affirmed the immigration judge's decision that he is statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal because of his two thousand and thirteen marijuana possession charge rendering him inadmissible despite his status as a lawfully admitted permanent resident not seeking admission to trigger the time stop time rule to end his clock for the continuous residence nine months short of the seven year threshold depart him from seeking cancellation the issue here is one of st impression for the court whether to stop time roof or cancellation of remove can be triggered by an offense that remembers inadmissible and lawful permanent resident such as the petitioner who was already who is already present in the united needed to and present in the united states in this case if we were to hold for petitioner would we an essence be letting him escape the consequences of his criminal conviction absolutely not your honor because the whole point of the cancellation of removal rule is to give the petitioner a nd chance is no guarantee that he is going to remain a cancellation every move released is basically to benefit the us citizens and permanent resident immediate family members in other words he has to go to the immigration judge and the judge has to try him and if he does not if he does not continue in his permanent resident status that would that cause an extreme hardship to his immediate family as a lawful permanent resident who is not seeking admission for closes in the midst ability a non citizens emission status is clearly critical in determining the statutory rounds under which you may be subject to remove can i ask who is trying to make sure i understand a sort of argument your argument under the stop tom rule is that there's  into the united states for the purposes of immigration law subject to sixty exceptions one abandonment or relinquish shouldn't i've been so i read those but tell me wife i is not your client two so if he satisfies subsection five tell me why he doesn't fall within this exception because you sort of say this is the exception where in l p r can be of permanent residence are not be regarded as seeking admission that's if he's returning didn't say it didn't say anything about when he is returning right i mean the only time where it says he's returning is like in six right where he's attempting to enter right so that's where he's attempting to enter where he's departed that's under or but why is five i don't see anything in fly about seeking to come back or whatever the what i'm saying is that it's clear that for example if you go to  argument in your view does does the ground of remove ability have to be the same as the stop time rule is that their argument no the argument is basically he not he's not deemed inadmissible she's not seeking admission he is in the united states he was admitted long ago and he is being charged with three movability and he has conceded just saying your honor is that non citizens emission status is clearly critical in determining the statutory grounds under which he may be subject to remove it follows that the mission evidence is the congress's intent to distinguish between inadmissible and the portable noncitizens ins that haitian because the rule specifies and triggers is triggered by a qualifying stop time rule provision is clear is triggered by two conditions st the commission of a qualifying offense and nd immigration consequences stemming from the offense for example being rendered in a mission deportable which is determined by that status of a specific non citizen in remove proceedings by ignoring the nd conditional condition relates the immigration consequence of the qualifying offense and the specific non citizen the government interpretation permits any offense  recognize the statutory distinction between inadmissible and the portable non citizens in their submissions the government wrongly focuses on the word r adjustment in november of two thousand and six that's because under the stop time rule persons period of continuous residence and when two requirements are met st the person must commit an offense referred to in sect and eighty two dollars of the immigration and nationality among those offenses is one of our going to controlled substance so his teeth are are the statutory schemes with respect to adjustment of status there are many aliens charge with grounds of deport ability so they are already here legally but they commit a crime a lot of aliens who commit aggravated felonies are only way to get relief from removal is just in their status by having an immediate relative petition for them and there in order to just your status you have to show that you are not otherwise in a missile so you have an admitted alien where the ground has nothing to do with in a mis ability you might not be able to prove that he was otherwise and immiscible because he might apart from whether you remain in the country or not it's how you're go through that process i'm not sure of that specific provision would be an example because it reads and ordered removed who is  removed so they could be ordered removed on any ground and then also be and that's sort of the yeah i mean i know that's a low level but it would still need to be they would still get a hearing and for the board to actually determine what the charges what so but reinforces the concept that emission in a mis ability aren't one of the same or different and six amendments were overhaul of the immigration and nationality act and congress was really targeted illions so they were trying to broaden the basis for which an alien was not eligible for relief and the stop time rule was actually introduced among referring to we did refer to it on pages two and nineteen for briefs our position on this case is that the government distorts this court's decision by steering the court except it says any alien that meets describe tyria that is a conviction is inadmissible and and in doing that it seems like to me what you're trying to have it say in of instead of any alien you're trying to say any alien seeking it mission that has this conviction is rendered inadmissible what we're saying is that that or sion in the that he does is not a pickable to an alien intil he for example in this case that you're mentioning he would leave and but but so help me under that's what i'm having trouble with because and eighty to eighty two doesn't say that it says any alien not any alien seeking admission or any alien who's not admitted or any alien who's right which is particularly troubling i think for your argument because s any alien who is in miscible or is removable so there's difference statutes that apply to the different categories that status and a two defines it not is any alien seeking admission but any alien period that means all aliens which includes an lp are right if you look at the definition of alien includes anyone who is not a citizen and so that means any alien under eleven a one alien defined as including anyone who is not a citizen so that would include your client is inadmissible if they meet this criteria as a status the ability aspect of it now the words the the law itself the actual stop time or rule itself has two different provisions one for distinction there is the history of you have to read it in the context of immigration nationality act which is always made the distinction between in a miscible and remove where deportable if it's one or the other what use do you make of the final phrase the stop time rule whichever is earlier whichever is earliest like that suggests it's not that you could qualify for both of them because if it's whichever is earlier that means you could qualify for one or the other whichever's earlier seems to rebut your argument that you can only fall in one of the two but yes in other words what i'm saying is you can't be in a mis and removeable at the same time you cannot be admitted to the united states is this petition or was and the same time seeking to enter the united states you can't do both simultaneously you have to be one of the other in congress who wrote this provision with that specific knowledge in mind the history of the eye in a statutory language has always viewed one or the other you either a remove