honor i think one of the initial questions the court may have both parties but perhaps particularly me is what type of discretion are we challenging the court to where discretion is much discretion and ministry of discretion and i think this case really raises a th type of discretion which is statutory discretion and i say statutory  lips may be adjusted by the attorney general may be adjusted in his discretion and under such regulations as he may prescribe to that of an alien lawfully admitted and then immediately following are the three conditions application protect adjustment eligible to receive an immigrant visa and then immigrant visas immediately available looking at that and isolation and i understand the prevailing view is that  soon as most courts see the word in its discretion and certainly the government would argue that that basically leaves everything else to the attorney general to decide and i don't think it does your honor an argument here is that it doesn't because that would effectively status but obtain your visa different obviously to come back into the united states that's the attorney general discretion that would be our initial argument because if you're just reading the plain language of the past that's what it's saying and saying if you're here the attorney general can decide whether to give you your call your status or your neither here in the united states and just i think the court's well aware of a visa something that's granted by the secretary of state under   think it's you are aware of the fact that you are aware the fact that we're bound by that decision have sort of non bank reversal that conclusion so telling us that we got it wrong doesn't give us any  statute which you have here is discretion by the immigration judge where he is looking to say even though your crime isn't lifted i can fill declare your crime in honestly that's kind of been you know my assumption with a lot of cases were twenty something years you know well you know he has discretion to decide when i look at the statute you know took me twenty years actually read the statute and i've been practicing i don't see it it's just not there there's nothing that says that discretion under two hundred and forty five dollars day gives the immigration judge just what your honor your honor said and i understand that that's kind of the prevailing view frankly i don't you know i couldn't tell you that that hasn't been my prevailing view but when i turn to the statute when i start to really break this apart you know deconstruct it it's not there i mean these crimes so i and i think that's this addiction with this court's prior holding because it's not necessarily the same case here i don't think the immigration judge is allowed to use his discretion here to decide whether to adjust somebody or not to go over to that list of inadmissible crimes and say yeah it's not on that one but i just think you're not a person you know i just don't think i should use discretion to admit you here because you know you did x y and z and i think that creates an inherently arbitrary system if that is the case because you'll have to distinguish you'll have three minutes in rebuttal thank you  committed a long time ago a minor crime that any reasonable adjudicator would not consider to reflect on the applicant's present character and with that with that the appropriate well your honor in in a case where that future beyond that the particular circumstance you just described could be considered as one factor one negative equity that would be compared against positive one and combined with any other negative one conviction which was later vacated and the later guilty plea to the subsequent charge but so my question is was it was it an error for the agency that you know the judge very clearly lewdness at page twenty three of our of our opening brief you know he writes the immigration judge then we have the most important adverse factor namely the respondent charges the record reflect that he was convicted by a jury of sexual assault and risk an injury to a minor and given a substantial prison sentence for fourteen years the court filings in a charge of involving a minor sexual assault very very serious charges which the prison term reflected i mean he doesn't you know like there despite maybe giving a passing acknowledgement that there was that or it was overturned some didn't really appeal we addressed some of our brief is still looking into that original inquiry eliminate any concern that the agency relied on an improper finding by maturing well i think your honor the judge's word and self speak to the fact that that was his conclusion i mean he concludes that those things would take matters work with the most important adverse factor namely the respondents charge and so you know i think when you link that with this idea that we're just divine ing you know this idea of discretion and being lifted from the statute and frankly from a place in the statute that really clearly has another purpose in mind to rip your own will have another intended purpose i think you know i think it's pretty clear that you know this isn't what the statute intended and i was i would just mention as a final comment is that if an immigration judge can really just look discretionary purpose then why would congress bother to put in all these other conditions it just it just logically doesn't make sense and the congress really wanted to have a strong hand in the immigration and tell judges exactly what they they were to decide things and what you know which people they were not allowed to admit so you take that and then you take an agency and we include this in a reply brief that is you know pretty singular it's you know immigration judge to the b i a to the attorney general opinions it's all in one file as far as its discretion goes so you know i respectfully submit your honor that in this case and frankly many others that the attorney general doesn't have such a broad and three and particularly when it comes to deciding criminal conviction that are part of a lemon eighty two thank you  for your arguments the court will reserve decision will