as the court is surely aware as you wade through the many immigration cases that appear before the federal courts there are often perhaps predominantly harsh results for many of the petitioners that appear here and as i look through the cases trying to identify unifying theme it seems obvious to me that the pollstar here's what is congressional intent what did congress intend to transpire who did they intend to become a citizen and how did they has maintained that he is in fact a united states citizen and has requested equitable relief at every turn and every pleading and every petition for a field that he has filed a matter how you frame it though you frame  have occurred and here there is no question as to either of those pertinent facts and i think even going beyond that to the specifics here when you when you get down into the merits of should the proceedings have been stopped could that be could the judge have halted proceedings to allow no relief that was an erroneous conclusion by the judge so on its face but was isn't what was but what do you really ask for well and your honor i mean what you're asking for and how you're going to get how we get there sure i think this case falls within the relief contemplated in cherokee who go there it was found unavailable given the statutory bar and in the unpublished decision author just a short while later also by judge sirica jacopo and in those cases the judge talked i think somewhat at length about the availability of non pro tunc relief when it's appropriate and what it contemplates and judge circuit invokes the edwards decision from the second circuit which contemplates and understands that federal courts i understand how you're getting there sure but i'm still troubled with what you're asking for sure we would like the court to recognize the effective date of rayna calix as naturalization fashion sitting in equity to remedy a wrong that has occurred that has not been that where the onus is not on the petitioner there was nothing that petitioner could have done to change that that's not disputed in the record there are errors here that caused a significant benefit to be deprived from the petitioner we see their errors define exactly what they are the errors in terms of the statutory or regulatory framework what do we hang our hat on in terms of saying this is what was done not court into law i think there are a host of them i think to me the defining one the most troubling one is the government's disregard for its own internal procedures that require them to expedite applications as an applicant who has a minor child approaches her eighteenth birthday that's as it comes in the unfortunate thing is this asli the first one is known put on clearly which is to fashion an equitable remedy to to fix an error made that was beyond control of the petitioner the second one you're you're exactly right jordan the case law does require affirmative misconduct from and of misconduct if this court were to enter an order of stopping the government from denying petitioners derivative citizenship and the case law is unclear as to what constitutes this conduct our argument is that this the failure to follow internal procedures that the unreasonable the way the repeated on reasonable delays the repeated failure to implement proceed years that were specifically designed to prevent the harm that was caused here rises to go of all of affirmative misconduct procedures i've looked at one that applies to section three twenty two i have not been able to find the actual internal procedure it's not in the convention we have internal procedure that really doesn't like section not according to the immigration judge so if you mean this court what i think according to what your research you haven't found it under three twenty one i'm relying on the factual findings of the immigration judge in the p r i which i believe also behind this court will be clearly  don't i don't know your honor i know that the immigration judge and the b i a and was not disputed by the government below that there were expedited procedures in place in the new york newark processing office where where miss hillocks is application was no matter how many different ways you find two articulated at the end of the day what you're asking for is that this were grant citizenship i don't think so not not at all your honor and i think that's really the key issue that the court has to confront here and in intentional and then judge scalia was very clear on what the issues were and that's one of these cases arising from one congress opened a small crack the door open for filipino so soldiers that that were joining us forces in the forty's and for political pressures they first withdrew some of the availability of that and then eventually closed the door and then titi otherwise would have qualified but didn't get through that door at the relevant time came and said look we deserve this and everyone agreed that they deserved it but justice alito i think rightly says you know what didn't but they contemplated in the can in the legislative history is clear they intended there's no question and no one has to know court that i'm aware of has disputed that the intent here by congress is that this petitioner becomes a citizen and it's the error of the government that prevented it it's not the law there's no statutory bar here they're the cause the congressional intent was for him to naturalize automatically upon the naturalization of his mother and the condition precedent that age limit here the reason he didn't meet that was not his own fault was not anything he could do it was beyond his control and it was actually the errors of the government that prevented are you reserve five minutes rebuttal  grant equitable remedies and issues naturalization petitioners claim that congress intended to have this particular area and naturalized is wrong congress provided no age out provision when it amended the child child citizenship act in the same timeframe that it amended the statute to provide for age or provision in issues of  board found i cannot provide moon in the board found that the circumstances here are unfortunate but there is no legal remedy and the courts don't have the authority to crowd out a legal equitable remedy here where the supreme isn't this a case where derivative citizenship is citizenship by operational l is it isn't that the means by which you get rid of citizenship by operation of law that's right but the means and that you don't have to you don't really have to do anything if if if in fact the naturalization a taking place in november instead of in march but the same was the case in pendulum one this is the ship there was also by operation of law and the aliens there were allowed to bypass a number of requirements for others who thought it was different it was a derivative was a it wasn't driven but they didn't have to show physical presence in the united states yeah which other ok so you are you would argue that there's enough civil similarities absolutely thrown that those a world war two veterans that fought with the u s army understand and stand the equities ok is there companion provision like the section three twenty two procedures that we refer to is there a three twenty one a i was also unable to find one i was only able to find the adopted children agency even had the resources and ability to keep track of the age of all of the derivatives of every single law so you're saying it might be different if she had sent a letter in when he was seventeen and i have say now he's going to turn eighteen and he's been pending for two years and and offered the agency an opportunity to trigger the expediting procedures whatever they may have been your position goes even had she done that and the more there's still no equitable remedy statute would be a legal question but because here petitioner is asking purely for equitable remedy which are not based on law he admits that under the statute he's not a citizen here the government would argue there is no plain language the acts not apply in congress has left the age requirements without any exceptions without any age up provisions when it amended the child citizenship act in the same timeframe w been violated here there is no forms of misconduct for equitable stoppel you have to show me i understand different than firman of misconduct but to the extent that to the extent that this certainly took longer than normal and there was a deprivation of derivatives citizenship by virtue of that isn't that i mean isn't it a valid argument that you can make that we've at least spoken in truth to that this request should contamination was further exacerbated by the hiring of illegal aliens to do the work i mean it was this one mistake by the government after another not a simple contamination of office space the issue before the court is whether mere delay as if it is the vision and there is no mere delay is not sufficient for any sort of error about the agency the agency has an inordinate number of applications and has to investigate every single application if it were required to process these applications in any particular short span of time it wouldn't be able to function but what point does the delay become a violation of due process surely there has to be some limit when the standard is whether proceedings are fundamentally fair here where the agency comply with its regulations compiled with the statute the proceedings are fundamentally fair petitioner is received two rounds of hearings before the immigration judge and he is asking the court to do something that the court lacks the power to do citizenship the court here can only review what the board set and where the board didn't have an opportunity to respond to the question that he's now presenting to this court was the general question one t the government somehow surprise that's the argument of well it matters how an individual presents a specific issue because how the response of the board gave was to petition specific question because that was the manner in which it was presented to the board the board can adjust every single angle of every single issue that arises before it what's the what's the meaning of for u board never had the opportunity to address whether this court could declare petitioner a citizen and that's the question he's now presenting here the boys never had the opportunity to answer that that is a very different technical question with different legal bases to support the response subject to any further questions that the court may have the government will press on the various thank you very much think to respond to primary points first going back to pendulum then and i think it really does matter what the statute is and really delving into what congressional intent is and to justice scalia is very clear and he is very explicit in delving into what congress meant when we're talking about those specific filipino soldiers who joined forces with the united states in the forty's congress unequivocal close that window of opportunity it may have harsh results but that is clearly what congress intended how do we divine intent that contradicts or runs counter to what the statute says this statute birthday how do we say oh well surely they feel they are they would say that has a little bit of flex depending upon when the application is filed and how long  takes and they said eighteenth birthday how do we how do we say the intent was something else and what was what was the intent that someone who files at age fifty i mean we really draw that line sure and i don't know that i have a response to that your honor but i'm not sure the fact question has to be resolved in this case on these facts why not well because i think congress could have drafted a different statute but they didn't but what we do know is that they intended for minor children of naturalizing applicants to automatically derive it  they said eighteen or they could have said that whichever is later you know the eighteenth birthday or within you know you know however many years of the filing of the application are made it really automatic government and i don't believe that that is the standard or could direct congress to do that busy exactly your honor that i don't think that can be reasonably the standard there is a limit as  ask before i think it there is a significant benefit that's been deprived it's not just mere delay here this is a mistake after mistake and for the first time in this entire eight years of due respect to the government i find that an extraordinarily distasteful argument that if you have an opportunity to remedy our mistake then hey it's on you for not taking advantage of that and that may have been the case and believe me we all wish that mr shubrick calix had gone ahead and effectuated naturalization on his own but he wasn't he shouldn't have needed to and stepping back another second here and looking at the actual equities we have an immigrant who's a minor second language is english whose mother applies to naturalize and everyone he knows has naturalized and become a us citizen why if i get arrested tomorrow and some for some reason the government contests my citizenship i could have at any point in the last thirty eight years gone ahead and sought a certificate of naturalization attempted to naturalize i could have done that  application when he was fifteen so all reasonable expectations are that he should have naturalized that's that that's what it seems clear that congress intended and i think  recognize i'm out of time i want to point at least as a parting thought to a couple of cases that i think shed some light on how awkward it will run these can operate in the context of derivative citizenship and they have again i'm not quite sure how to pronounce it back go or back got decision by judge becker there there's a series of these decisions from a number of circuits there's the fear of decision by judge judy and in the first circuit they reach different results but the pollstar there is what's the congressional intent and we recognize the state court proton to create that's fixing a problem that prevented derivative citizenship and both courts are consistent in finding that look what we have to find out here is what the congressmen what did they want and they both concluded that the relevant question is did congress intend for this particular applicant who satisfied the conditions of the statute