there was a petition for adoption file yes you're not until that right well right you're on it before then they had filed a guardianship and attempted to file an adoption but it never of my problem with the adoption argument that you were making at this point is that it seems to me from reading the child citizenship back provision that your client had to have qualified for legal residency in the united states irrespective of this adoption and we don't have that qualification before he turned eighteen so why isn't that the determinative circumstance in this case is still year to qualify for permanent legal residency in this country before he turned eighteen is that the word pursuant to the phrase pursuant to legal permanent residents was initially drafted with visas in mind such that people would come to the united states under and i are category of either or and i category b those visas are pursuant to a legal permanent residence not that they would have a legal permanent residence before they got here however the courts have decided that when children come if they get legal permanent resident sometime resident i feel is the of those reasons would just as equally apply to my client who applied for a legal permanent residents before he turned eighteen but the legal permanent residence clearly was not approved until after had to happen first and then they filed for the green card but i would argue that when he first came to the united states it was pursuant to legal permanent residence and citizenship that was the point he came in under a visitor's visa which frankly read was relied on by the big guy i think they relied on the the adoption point you have the authority to assess underlying qualifying relationships as to whether the alien can receive immigration benefits but that they should not be assessing state court orders and trying to look underneath the so governor doesn't make the argument if you win on the first his other argument we should firm on this basis not on this basis but i wanted to point out that remained would be few  though nonetheless because he would not have derived the united states citizenship and even though the board did not address that in the denial of the motion to reopen the immigration judge had looked at this before when the merits of that asylum withholding you say you change the rule so you applied the wrong rule against him as though there are at the time to change the rule that you use against it it's the government's position that the board create an exception to the general evidence of any fraud here i mean it just seems to me it's totally absent from the record you do have the thirteen year lab sinew certainly there is the criminal activity that occurred in the intervening period but we're seeing evidence of fraud or manipulation of the of the state court adoption process the government has not taken the position that it was necessarily fraudulent the government is taking the position though that congress has written a statute which the agency has interpreted in order for determining whether or not there are bonafide or spurious adoptions and that rule was set forth through the imposition of an age restriction and that in order to meet the definition of a child that person must have been adopted while under the age of sixteen congress opted to create this rule instead of creating the investigative means for doing a case by case basis unfortunately in some deferred to the fifty states on adoption correct correct so any time you got an adoption in a in a in a newer version cage you got to see what state court records you got fifty possibilities years old in three hundred sixty four days a couple of points here on earth the first being that and a gratian law is a federal immigration laws a federal will agree with that correct right can congress has written a statute for determining who constitutes a child for purposes of immigration law got to be a child and you're under sixteen if your child if you're adopted while you're under the age of sixteen i got to be under sixty to be a trial correct you've got to be shine it's not going to recognize it's interpret in the phrase what it means to have been adopted while under the age of sixteen and the government has taken the position over the years at the date then you compare it to each birthday but the statute does not address what happens in the situation of time adoption to raise he filed the petition here when he was sixteen years ten months old proton to the time that the baby was taken by the adoptive parents but i don't think they're i don't think they're that uncommon but the concern here again is because of the possibility for invading emigration this the seventeenth always twenty seven thousand nine hundred ninety nine you say it's not but it's actually exactly what you say in the question is whether we can up hold you or not whether you are entitled to be ok is entitled to do that and when and you say to recognize it but then then you've got the panel of the board to adopt this correct a rule that we're not going to recognize not broke don't order oh no court no army in the country except eleventh circuit in  before he was sixteen now thirteen years later defacto it had not taken place and the government contends that if you open it up not recognizing all non proton production decrees that is essentially what the state courts would be doing is overstepping its grounds and possibly not the following that nature is for action that congress had set forth in the statute when it comes to respect to the definition of a child who had dropped a child is and it should be  considerable deference by this court they have considered the legislative history and matter of carry out again matter of jury go most recently a matter playing it's had the benefit of reevaluating but i think that for the problem the argument is that you have already if if it's true that we have to defer to congress and congress the schild it wasn't putting in any that in to defer to them not to to but you've already exceeded and said there is one exception and you say it's a narrow exception so i don't i'm not quite sure how all that works i mean this isn't your fault but right now you're put here in kind of an untenable position you know oh and i think the board explained it as such and that looking at adoption as we discussed before you look at th that's why they want to look at to determine whether or not the dobson petition was filed before the each of sixteen and so that progress was being made legally before the courts to have the adoption completed before the age of sixteen so the board reserved it to itself to be able to review the ability of the adoption proceedings in the fifty states is going to review each of them and see whether the criteria of the border satisfied and and and that it reserves the power to disregard the adoption order of the various names and specifically here you and even i don't think the agency would say that all adoptions that are done or immigration purposes are wrong no you know but a lot there's a lot of the times that they're going to be done for that purpose but there are situations in which it's going to be done for immigration purposes and that's where there needs to be caution and congress opted by providing this rule in the statute and so that it would not be subject to the various state laws while some don't recognize our don't have provisions expressively permitting for none proton adoption strike and you know i mean that makes a certain amount of sense to me but you're familiar with federal odd that a federal statute would define which it doesn't define what adoption is or what card it would be so why would a federal agency be able to do that rather then  federal law and whether or not he's been adopted while under the age of sixteen when adoption is a uniquely state law you said that it's a state law issue states do it better role government the federal courts don't do it often here days do adoptions of questions whether the the big guy he's going to recognize the state adoption proceedings and whether he can pick and choose right but this statute it's for the purposes of federal law congress has not plainly indicated in its statute that it was can be depended upon state law and there are situations similar to that of marriage where marriages that qualif yeah yeah first not sure that there is an analogy that helps you there well just with the marriage law and what certain states had defined marriage as between certain genders and that has changed with time wednesday or but it required the government to essentially depart from its defense of marriage act and recognize it but it wasn't until the federal government had done so that changes to the rule that matter a whole of hwang that made in my opinion are not good enough they don't actually fully address what the ninth circuit objected to  avoiding fraud it seems to be picking off these bonafide relationships and i don't think that judges family court judges are going to suddenly start issuing a bunch of not put on orders just because lawyers acts for them it's not an easy thing to do issue i do think there is room for i understand your argument ok and you got an argument it's not yes your honor every guarding i believe one of one of your honors mentioned that  adoption was clearly sought to for immigration purposes i would like to point out where you agree to that to this petition or into his family the family relationships are just as important as the negative consequences of him being sent off to nigeria a place that he hasn't seen since he was he was a baby is the unifying criminal has he served you are criminals he has search other he was in jail for quite some time before immigration adoption is similar to married and should be ruled on a case by case basis those cases are cited in a matter of hwang if you're interested further that big a actually recognizes marriages that have no papers no court orders they recognize marriages that are done in foreign countries according to local custom the i didn't meet in matter for that matter of carry it was too restrictive i think the words were too limiting and therefore that's why they made the changes they made and therefore i think