homeland security he came to the united states as a lawful admitted as a lawful permanent resident the age of eleven his father nationalized it when mr come on he was fourteen now the sections  from the child citizenship act which amended section three twenty of the immigration and naturalization act or section one hundred one a which we've been referring to in the briefs as the requirements section and section one  four which we've been referring to as the effective date provision now it's our position that mr kamandi became a united states citizen and so february twenty seventh two thousand and one the effective date  of the child citizen ship act back to effective date provision says that that the actual take effect one hundred twenty days after the date of the an act of the act that's arguing that the act was meant to apply to mr come on any even though it's a time he was nineteen years old is the language has been fulfilled in section one o one a that's the first paragraph our argument is that that language which is then followed by the three conditions that language was meant to imply that the that the three conditions even though they're in the present tense can have been fulfilled in the past in this case mr khamenei did meet each of those conditions and became a united states citizen now it lets you have any specific questions i'll go ahead and get into a little bit more detail on each of those  how do we deal with news i do we deal with use she was obviously is on point and that's why i made a motion for on block consideration in the first instance before filing briefs apparently that motion was denied through in action the chording hughes went right to the present tense that's used in the three conditions and said that when section one hundred four refers to the requirements having been fulfilled it's referring to those three conditions rather than what we're arguing is a single requirement that those conditions have been fulfilled as of the effective date and again arguments that set forth in the briefs is that has been fulfilled language is meant to indicate that the conditions can have honor it's far as i know that the precise statutory language the analysis that we've undertaken hasn't been addressed by any court and the second and i believe the second best eleventh and of course the knights of all agree that you must have been under the age of eighteen but again the act was in two thousand and one hughes came out pretty shortly thereafter nemi also in the fifth circuit came out a little bit thereafter and our position is is well let me back up and then shortly after that the the board of immigration appeals then addressed the issue in quite a bit of detail more detail than in the in the decisions from the courts although it also came down contrary to our position but i would ask and we are asking that the ninth circuit now that it's had an opportunity to look back at all the cases look at a little more closely at the reasoning and thousands honestly you know and i don't know how many people it is my concern is with mr combining and we do know that when when this legislation was drafted there were amendments to the legislation done at the suggestion of the justice department in the department of state and in fact it appears this far as i can tell the justice department wrote the language including the effective date provision and so when we get in particular that second part of the effective date position  provision the one that refers to it applying to individuals who meet the requirements as of the effective date it's certainly my argument that the intention of the justice department when they inserted that in there is to make it clear that i would use the word grandfathered i'd say that it's intended to be a sweep up provision and to give warning to people during that four month period from the passing of the legislation in till the time when it goes into effect that if you meet the conditions on that date you're going to entitled to chevron deference and its juncture when we've argued that point in the briefs and deference only applies to the specific points that are given to the board for consideration here we're deciding as a matter of hughes controls so i guess his best hope is that we convince twelve of our colleagues to take it in make create a circuit conflict that doesn't exist and then hope the supreme court agrees with us understood your honor and in light of that i'm previous ruling that's a rule of it as i understand anyway a rule of comedy rather than a rule of jurisdiction but still i expect the court will follow it so again you know i don't i don't know what else to say other than that the legislation was passed in two thousand and one recognizing that there was a great injustice being done in certain cases where you have people who have lived in the country for many years but never became united states serious and citizens because of certain actions that were taken or not taken by their parents mr come on and certainly feel certainly falls into that category he said he said he served a six month or so sentence on the drug sales charges or the possession charges and you know any other person who was a citizen would and would then get to move on with their life but instead mr come on twenty three having been in the country for thirteen years is being sent back to kenya where he hasn't really any ties and it's certainly our position that the legislation was intended to remedy that situation and i'll leave it there ok thank you both for your arguments the case just argued will be submitted for decision