ask you this very if you don't mind my interrupting the facts of the case here are that your client was intercepted basically so in process while he was being smuggled  he was incarcerated and then he was allowed or maybe even required was a little unclear what room i should use to stay in the united states pending the prosecution of the smuggler he himself was not charged with smuggling he used the smuggling if you were and rather than keep him incarcerated during the period while we're waiting trial the smuggler he was given parole and then at the conclusion of the trial we have all who were proceeding which is the ordinary proceeding what she would have what what you say is consistent with what i thought i said and that is to say yours wanting us to conclude that this paul is the equivalent of being paroled in the united states which would then allow him to adjust status a play on words into the united states is the reason that you didn't qualify because he was not paroled quotation marks into the united states but in essence when you paroled somebody and release them on their own we caught recent case of borno versus gonzales a year and a half old case would be nice if we got these earlier but fortunately we have a diligent law clerk who seems to have drenched the stock anyway and discussed that but that case holds the two forty five one  being used for the public benefit of a witness in a criminal proceeding terminated he was ordered to come back you came back on august twenty eighth two thousand and ten at that time he was then placed on regular he had a place a regular band so the attorney general was differentiating between when he was on parole and when now he was back into the system into the removal proceedings so you know what are you saying is two forty five one ca doesn't have anything to do wit two forty five they try to distinguish by saying that he did not have the right to i just yes because he was a conditional parolee but they were a separate section and that a conditional parolee was not allowed to adjust status while he was in removal proceedings and were stating that even assuming that he was a conditional parolee even a expired we'll hear from the other side the issue in this case is whether the board's immigration judges interpretation construction of two statutory provisions is permissible and thus should be given difference undershaft in this case  ok if we look at what is the purpose and we work at the language of the two statues involved which is what the board and great immigration judge did that said conditional plural under section two thirty six nothing has nothing to entering the united states it is a relief from detention statute is a detention statute that is under two three six say the immigration judge is given the authority to either continue to let's look at the entry statues that is two twelve and two forty five which do use the same word parole but only as they are modified by that phrase that very key phrase into the united states and they said that in you know the they're basically for some reason at the border or near the border and the where patrol officers are or the court if they're and gratian proceedings has the option of treating them release that is allowing them to it's almost like a fiction usually a parolee is somebody that's outside our borders it's an arriving alien but once they're inside we create this fiction that we can prole them in even though they're inside the united states who we program and who we throw out to use the vernacular well if that's why we have proceedings in rule proceedings and yeah but i mean can you can you give us a sense of what kind of people are paroled into and what kind of people are thrown out people who usually can show the good ole us some kind of relationship the united states citizen can show a working background paying their taxes broken any laws you have some ties you're paying your taxes so we're going to throw you into the united states and what do you get a green card no you don't get a green card and what do you get you are given an opportunity to apply for adjustment status that's what it is or asylum or i mean if they're at the border if they're arriving in and they're probing the united states usually to apply somebody shows up and says they're torturing me and in nigeria right can parole somebody like that into the united states that's correct or are you know usually we don't turn people away if there are at our borders knocking at the door and claiming that they will be persecuted if we are if their return however if we also if the purposes of the two statutes involved here not just in your language but the purposes what the distinction in purposes and in that way they they were able to perceive the congressional intent in this case finally  told that they are not allowed to just status obviously that's been already handled by by this court's decision and bona we argued that that was not exhausted and it wasn't it i have to say i find it difficult when there are two parallel ways of referring just extra sections the experts seem to like to refer to the statutory section as it was written in the statute and