california state court that brings heard her to the attention of the department of homeland security coming home that's pretty places in removal proceedings based upon that can before the overstay she gains permanent resident she has suffered two crimes of valving moral turpitude after her date of adjustment i'm sorry admission and this is a key point i almost messed up but that's part of the problem here is that the date of admission and  its wording is a little difficult to process but basically puts the alien in notice that it's the date of adjustment that is the date of admission for purposes of the two thirty seven statute the council can i go to the question i've got and see if i maybe you can just answer i want to give you a fair chance to answer it seems to me if we if we read that case law the way you read it and interpret this the way you interpret it then an a person who comes to the country lawfully as i think your client did but overstays are a lot of negative factors that fall into play when a person overstays on their visitor's visa the only benefit for a person they say for example is adjusting under to forty a would be that they had been admitted so to speak under the when they entered on the nonimmigrant visa i don't know that there's a but i think what you're suggesting then would be that the person that entered overstayed isn't subject to the same rules and my correct i think i think the idea would be if she had done what she was supposed to do and not overstate and got in or just in the just want to stand as then then she'd be looking at exactly what she's looking at now and what you're saying is that because she overstayed and wasn't here legally and then get this assume that it's intended result and not the intended result in fact that's part of the problem with the statute itself is that we don't know what the intent of congress is because they interview we know that congress wanted to remove aliens who committed two or more crimes involving moral turpitude after admission and in the hypothetical that judge kristen posed to you a person who admitted and lawfully stayed for the whole period and suffered the same two convictions that your client suffered would be removed but under your argument we would not remove someone who adjusted later and restart the clock even though your client suffered two crime so involving moral turpitude convictions that's the absurdity that we're concerned with well your honor i'm going to use this it was eleven eighty two and twelve thirty seven or i need to twelve versus two thirty seven they are distinctly different in that they require different things for individuals and then a person after they've been admitted as a permanent resident are subject to very different rules than those seeking admission seeking to come into the united states congress is concerned is with removing undesirable aliens and  defined its concern as two or more violations of crimes involving moral turpitude after admission that the congressional intent that we have to give effect to doing our what you know and i'm not sure that that's true rule and if they have followed what they've knowledge was the rule what they believe was the rule in the ninth circuit then the respondent the position of would have been removed are there any other ongoing proceedings has she challenged the second conviction  state court has she challenge it on basis if i see anything else going on no she has not your honor although i did on thursday file a supplemental brief and from my perspective somebody was implying that you know i think with this we did night here and yes y after admission and mission is defined as the entry after inspection by an immigration officer at the border as long as the two convictions happen at any time after an admission  there's only and it's i know it's a different some paragraph or two thirty seven but the case is there's only one date of admission and it says that what you're supposed to look at is the admission by which the person is in the country at the time they commit the crime if you apply that just that language in this case the admission by which the petitioner in this case is in the country when she commits the crime is the adjustment of status and she only committed one of these theft offenses after that  exhausted the statute draws differences among admissions your point look maybe maybe i should add a word by which she's properly in the country but which she has status yeah status ok and status is separate from the concept of admission congress didn't include any reference to status in the admission definition and when congress wanted to make the maintenance of status significant it did so for did so in the adjustments but in that bit and now ya see the a considered the adjustment of status to be an admission argument i can't pronounce this case either but if the case is it in seven render the two that are you know of course as you know that we're struggling with in there and there a little bit wobbly right an alley i g the question was whether there was the admission at the border or the adjustment was the relevant admission to the board an ideology found that since the subsection in play and that statute required the date of admission  to the date of the admission at the border as being the one for the relevant time period and refresh my recollection in that case had the alien entered without inspection originally came in as a nonimmigrant they came in i for the admission into the country and the overstaying in the footnote that counsel was referencing overstaying has no effect on the character of an admission the board analogy held that the relevant admission for a for a four and a twelve twenty seven a t a one crime involving multiple within five years you're looking to the admission at the border your results can be the same in this case because you look at the statute requires at any time after admission twelve twenty in under eight thirty eleven a one hundred thirteen eight but that wouldn't have been true and he has he also and whatever it's pronounced he has he also yes your honor you know so it but in but in that case the way the board read the statute was basically that that the that the first quote unquote admission wasn't the a present the relevant one it was the second one that was the relevant one it was the admission at the border that led to the physical presence right answer yes you are right that was the relevant admission so when you so when the board says that the date of admission again i recognize it's a different subject again for two thirty seven the date of admission refers to the date of admission by virtue of which that it was present in the united states when he committed his crime i mean if if what you said a minute ago this case was true and he has he that would have been the old one not the new one and that's not the way the board determined it of most i'm missing something here my recollection the matter really i g r was the board was reaching back to the entry at the border that led to the alien physical presence at the time of the commission of the crimes ok they were went back they did not they did not reach a stop at the adjustment they reached all the way back to the admission of the and that was that because that subsection includes the date of admission language give you a chance but it seems to me the government's not entirely consistent on this point depending on what part of the statutory scheme we're looking at am i wrong no your honor i believe we're as consistent we can be with the states i'm not i'm not faulting you because and i just would like to hear your best response to that she remand analysis focused on the plain language of the statute right that was what was key and that was again twelve twenty seven a two a one which is the date of admission and is if you have somebody who's properly admitted then at any time after is that right your honor and my has it is has been seen on that point is i'm aware of some cases of talk that only a procedurally regular admission is required as opposed to a substantively lawful one which means that if they're actually admitted at the border even if they weren't entitled to be admitted it counts as an admission ok fair enough but that's not in this case thank you if you further no your honor since the there landry you have a little or three minutes thank you i happen to have the board's decision in front of me and in twenty five i in and dec three ninety seven and the alien in that case was a nonimmigrant who enters in august of two thousand and one he overstays april two thousand and six he becomes a permanent resident so we're outside five years then he commits the crime in two thousand and seven and then the government puts them into removal proceedings for having committed a crime involving moral turpitude within five years of admission so is doesn't that mean that that five years couldn't be the two thousand and one because that's more than five years so it have to be the two thousand and seven conviction well in that case though didn't the boards say that you can have more than one admission but that  applying at work trying to avoid the absurdity that judge crist and presented to you by way of hypothetical and therefore there has to be some flexibility in the manner in which the statute is interpreted you or i have certainly understand the flexibility position and the intent of congress but if congress doesn't tell us what they mean and if they don't put it in plain language for the alien to understand what's going on read let me read the language to you this is out of the and it's the very end of the opinion if looks like the third paragraph i don't have a specific page cite maybe five four  under this understanding of the phrase the date of admission the five year clock is not reset by a new admission from within the united states through adjustment of status rather such a new admission merely extends an existing period of presence that was sufficient in and of itself to support the alien susceptibility to the grounds of deport ability why doesn't that language support the government's position where you are i think it does support the government's position i guess but it like i said from our perspective when the when our petitioner made the decision of whether or not to commit the crime or not in two thousand and ten shouldn't she ha been able to rely upon the ninth circuit president she's subject the ninth circuit president and this is a case again afterwards really put her on notice what troubles me about that is not what she knew when she made the decision to make the crime concerned about what she knew when she made the decision to enter a plea because she had a non frivolous defense to this charge and yet there's this sentence also on page four a six that says we now hold that the statutory phrase the date of admission necessarily refers to a single date in relation to the person an offense of us not every date of admission triggers the five year clock and it seems to me to be and we're just we keep coming coming back to this point about this this phrase being used inconsistent we don't see that very often in case law where we talk about it being permissible to to to construe the same phrase differently but i would agree you honor and i think there's a certain amount of due process and fairness that needs to be involved here and there and another person comes to our country and if they have the foresight to review our immigration laws and what our void for it's too confusing for especially for anyone penciling bashing about the extent to which she may have relied upon this case when she says she was represented at the time she entered her plea the second time  very much ok just argued is