next case on the calendar is hammered you sessions is the regulation at that eight c f r twelve thirty nine point two which permits a ilian to seek to seek terminations so that that alien might naturalized where the afforded that should it should not be afforded deference because it's put it's inconsistent it's inconsistent with with fourteen twenty nine and it reads into the regulation  something that is something simply not permissible should reach into the regulation the affirmative even if we thought perry alone was wrong we have the authority for this panel come out a different way i believe you do is particularly is particularly illuminative in light of the time that's a lapse since since the fact is the dissented from the invision situation in which people were unable to naturalize where the government the department of homeland security could could by its size by its very silence per hit somebody from being eligible to seek naturalization so in this particular case  is eligible for naturalization there are no statutory bars to naturalization but he's precluded because he could not get the affirmative the affirmative assent from the partner of homeland security who is precluded from doing so some of the rationale that the court had  go used was that immigration judges are unable are unable because they don't have the jurisdiction to do to keep naturalization petitions but also not particularly versed in in those decisions and that's simply not true immigration judges decide applications in i see that my time is up not quite up well let me ask is there any you have a legal argument as to why this granting continuances although they don't have the authority to adjudicate those particular positions they often they in the course of granting a continuance review those decisions and in other areas even though they don't have the power to  e naturalization petitions and the district court upon a denial of that is provided with the the the authority to do to keep those denials but in this particular instance there centrally there's no judicial review here that apartment of homeland security doesn't acquiesce or doesn't assent to an affirmative statement that the person's eligible and then that person is precluded from seeking any judicial review he's not able to there's  vested with the department of homeland security and it denial would be vested the jurisdiction would be vested with the district court but certainly we would submit that the immigration judge should be at least permitted to adjudicate prima fashion eligibility and as i said in other contexts the they haven't done so it's been eight nine years since parea was decided this is going to this is going to go on indefinitely and there's there's no judicial review and mean it essentially what perry always said is this is a dog chasing its tail and it's going to continue to do so and people who again who are otherwise eligible for naturalization are precluded from from from from naturalizing is a defense to remove all the supreme court said in as the supreme court said no your honor so in the instance where somebody would be eligible for naturalization they would apply for and actually show the naturalization prior to and the removal proceedings being instituted and then in the context of the saw for instance perhaps there  that would permit them to remain in the united states or they would refer them to the immigration court in this particular instance unfortunately mr hemmer has been a lawful permanent resident for more than forty years is he's not eligible for any other relief in the for clothes from from moving further and again you know as the court said i believe it is a sympathetic case and as a sin the supreme court has said that you know that the effects of deportation are particularly onerous and good morning your honor isn't it please the court my name is katherine clark appearing on behalf of respondent denial of terminations in this case was required by both matter of it all go and this court's decision and perry yellow which has been affirmed and relied upon by four other circuits since the perry elo case was decided mr hammer additionally could have obtained a ruling on and four hundred applications had a naturalization application at any time before the notice to appear was served in two thousand and fifteen if you believed that he would be prima facia eligible beginning five years after his most recent conviction in two thousand and two even assuming that that were true which the government does not concede but if you believe that he could have applied during any point in the eight years between two thousand and seven and two thousand and fifteen but he did not do so and  lack of a prima facia eligibility determination or a full adjudication of that could have been reviewed under fourteen twenty one c is attributable at least in part to that duration during which he did not file an application and additionally section fourteen twenty nine eight u s c section fourteen twenty nine does bar c i s from considering up location for naturalization while removal proceedings are pending the corn and has squarely concluded the agency cannot consider cannot consider naturalisation applications during that time and for that reason the board acted properly in denying the motion to terminate and the petition for of you should be denied to be brief for the reason that people in in real world situations don't seek to naturalized or in their in the time that they're in the united states if they have a criminal conviction is because the government has been increasing the department from its curity and eyes are increasingly adept at finding people picking them up so mr cameron would have been per would have been given an opportunity to naturalized but he would be faced with  potentially being incarcerated and subject to mandatory detention i think he made iraq you know would make another rise rational decision your honour's this particular regulation doesn't contemplate the fact that the h other under fourteen u s c fourteen twenty nine the department homeland security is prohibited from doing that i believe that that is a it's a clearly clearly erroneous interpretation i don't believe that  that it's consistent with a regulation or congressional and and i would ask the court to take action accordingly thank you thank you