respect for the war time limits it given you five minutes to make your position known during the course of that we're going to be asking you some questions and this may sound very simple and i hope it doesn't sound condescending but it's important most lawyers don't do this i would ask that you one let us ask the questions stop so we can ask you the question listen to the question and answer the question we have asked you and yet i don't want to be patronizing for you it most lawyers do not introduce himself later i am respectfully asking this court to grant my petition for review and injunctions which i am entitled to by law no remand should be made to the district court to the board of immigration appeals situation where do you become citizens the only problem was like what happened with the immigration authorities they dragged me into something i did not belong so when you're being rationed proceedings you cannot go  know for a fact it began by mistake i did not belong in deportation or anything but would drag me to a stake well i never committed anything that would create this problem for me removal proceedings i only for people who are illegal or who committed certain crimes no minds is a petty penna of times for example if you get traffic tickets the immigration authorities cannot drag you and say let's go we got to deport you just because you got traffic tickets my violations are in fact there d m v related stuff there not knowing tensional crimes or anything were committed i mean they were little more than just traffic tickets there pennsylvania petty offenses the maximum sentence i vehicle in it's not registered the police can give you all kinds of risk in that to get a traffic offense but yours was more serious when it was in a way because if you look at the facts i have all the facts and confinement on the day the judge gave me probation which is pennsylvania county probation i had so far twenty three months of maximum twenty three months of parole probation parole date it's county  it's not one of those where you have to report to the parole department resources think about pennsylvania you can get what we call in pennsylvania a county sentence which in any of the state in the federal system would be defined as a trolley and pennsylvania increase a statute which allows incarceration up to five years is a misdemeanor it's the only thing and over like that usually if you can get one year in a day or more that's a felony in pennsylvania it's very strange so even though it may have been case the judge said you serve two months but you serve the lady that's three confinement time he said now you've got to report for us which i did and when i reported for six months the judge said you're the well it's the court that you a naturalized citizen when you were going through all of these proceedings that's legally the only thing we can reach you address no you mentioned already that your father was naturalized after you turned eighteen yes yes that nothing we can do that you says what it says unless you can show that before you turned eighteen and were an adult both of you parents were naturalized if that's the case you obtained are going to give citizenship and the i n a the immigration nationality act does not apply to you but if that's not the case then you could not just because of your parents naturalization also become naturalized is american citizen you have to take those steps and do that on your own that situation that person must be clean from criminal record if he is clean if you can go up late for citizenship then there's no reason why you shouldn't become a citizen or you have to rid of citizenship things conditions met you're automatically a citizen in order for you to get the application the certificate of application you have to go apply for that's up to you if you don't want to get it you don't have to what is it what is not a magic what is manic you are becoming a citizen when you when you turn eighteen i missed that eighteen when you're eighteen and your father is a citizen like in my situation and the nd is eighteen under eighteen and the  one is when you're a legal permanent resident to run for president on a state your father became a citizen after you became eighteen well that's the reason congress created the the c c a for people like in my situation there are three categories one is the plain and simple ones the ones that meet the conditions on that day the nd one is somebody in the future will get this in the rd one is for somebody who missed th one condition but only way to vote rich or active for it to work retract of lee in my situation like for example if you're going back to the future card you know in the movie back to the future my father sits with me in the car we go to the one thousand nine hundred and eighty eight when i'm eighteen we come back in we accomplished everything this is not for trying to believe i'm sure you know what that is none for tax relief works that way if you meet all of these three your automatically a citizen but there's a catch to all of this no aggravated felony condition ever and another there is never been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude and i think there's another one where the attorney general can come up with his own reasons why you should not become a if you need all of these three things are clean as a baby if you can get a citizenship application you can get it automatically the same exact weight the catch is remember it's you have to be clean from makes a person inadmissible is specially a lawful court minute resident he can carry a firearm there's no law that you cannot carry a firearm in and number one it wasn't even a firearm if you look at the record there's a police report is doing  the philadelphia police department is saying there was no firearm i thought you wanted it you actually pled guilty to do you your honor if you look at the definition we have to go by the statutory definition we cannot say because immigration official a long list it goes into details the person it has to be a perfect match we cannot say well we believe this is going to be this based on the name of the offense we have to look at the statutory definition what is it and we one can't fly while true that the statute does move back and forth in describing actions by petitioner and by any and it does so in a way that makes clear that that language is not being used intentionally in it indeed as we pointed out in our brief while so seat three c then doesn't apply if you're a citizen but why can't it nothing in the deadline is specific to the deadline just applies to all petitions for review so why not take that textual difference seriously and say you've got thirty days as an ordinary time as well and then we'll deal with these constitutional concerns if this if the time has becomes an issue maybe but maybe maybe you could get an exception if if that's the only way but we'll talk about maybe this isn't the only way to get rid of us citizenship cl terms of the ileum so maybe we should hold the one doesn't apply if you're contesting citizenship because of the word alien but the one doesn't have that language you're going to agree that you want does not have that language i certainly acknowledge that the use of the term language partner the use of the term alien to de one could be seen as a differentiator but our position is that because of the fact that an alien that none of these  the same logic it's not before us right now was closed out administrative leave maybe that's the best way to combine the two cases and then take it that way judge nikki i don't disagree that we're in a court to reopen that case there were no detail or not it would be it wouldn't be any further bargain under this court's ruling and the trick there is going to be if mr almighty is a citizen of the timeliness things that we're talking about wouldn't apply  nothing to suggest that of his own after he became a teeny he went to nationalization if he is then a lot of these other hypertechnical issues are resolved but my concern now is that i don't essentially irrelevant so sending it back only to have it comes back to this court if that were you know it's simply being just missed i mean number part we're providing no additional insight to this court that was the reason that we suggested in our briefing that mr mr hartman though that that concern only applies with full force if there's no way to raise an absolute jested that there is a pathway by a motion to reopen so why is  constitutional concern if we st channel these citizenship claims through motions to reopen which would seem like they're always going to be available without a jurisdictional why why would that be a constitutional problem with saying you can't do it the way mr  that but then it comes to us on the petition for review and we could hold that that was based on the incorrect understanding of the law or overlook constitutional concerns and we could we could grant the is what congress did with the real i d act in two thousand and five i think these are exactly the issues that they were concerned about not just that there would be no avenue there would not be an avenue that has is sufficient replacements about that so you are right that there's case law saying there are constitutional concerns but there's also case law jennings and a bunch of others talking about the zipper clause aspect of the funneling these claims if the effect of the law as to to bypass his b s and to funnel these claims into motions to reopen and let's agency feels constrained to deny the motion to reopen but then we can review that and maybe we can dispense with the time a number of bars is not interested what would be the remaining constitutional concern with funneling them through that procedure read the been our right george negus i think that the answer is that we would have a problem with the ability of the petitioner especially in a develop any evidence and then we're in this court where it is true that the statute allows some flexibility beyond the normal scope of what this court conspirator but it's still not the kind of opportunity going to dish it would have in the district court  and missed of madea's not seeking released from custody he's not in custody be seeking immigration relief to restore his ability to be in the country it's the relief of seeking is different from the relief that the received him says the only relief by the to the country without a visa be arrested and then press his claim that we have now because then he would have a claim for relief under a b s and we would run into the same problem the immigration process would not have been he served in the weeds of how directive citizenship work and the various avenues you made the right thing to do here is just to treat his statements that he is a citizen which he made not only conceivably that may be a very short proceeding but allowing mr monti to have his day in court as someone who claims citizenship is a small price to pay for ensuring that we defend what is as this court recognized several times a paramount  but he would need to because his parents are alive and married at and there is no genuine issue of material fact is the if there's no way to litigate citizenship but your argument is that a motion to reopen is is going to be available but pulling the legs out from mr muddies case to other other people who claim the citizens any leeway in all in terms of how we will and that yes your honor i did most of the research on that case and on the cases that were cited in that note in the footnote i checked all of them from the beginning since the th circuit i think that then the next one was the th circuit then this circuit there is nothing that supports the government there is everything that supports me now that those judges that made those decisions they just made it wisely they did not go into details in the family is my immediate surprise you but sometimes judges may well decisions but with your honor it's on our i am going to prove that those decisions are wrong that my interpretation is the only correct and constitutional interpretation which could go to the supreme court eventually it might because the government will not be happy if the  you follow that path which seems to give you a wider open door you know argument you're making now your honor i thought about all of that i have money i can pay five thousand dollars fees if i have to the money is not the issue commit aggravated felony they did not like his face they did not like his religion they did not like the place where he was born i don't know what the situation is they're saying you got to go back to the united states that's where you belong that's where your mother your father their citizens you belong