and this is both of the situation when you deal with criminal aliens and with principal aliens that have passed before their derivatives have landed on u s soil it's it's immigration laws one on one it  around that the way you get around iran is that says join our following to join congress didn't say that this particular individual has to land first in the u s so i can give you a whole bunch of scenarios one individual if they're flying for instance to the airport say from beirut to to the u s or from france over to the u s and the father happens to get searched and he ends up landing before his father so does that mean this individual is no longer available to get citizenship in this country  proceedings of entering a removal order against you once you don't do that it is clear from all the proceedings in the clip from the case at least that the only cases ever really addressed this particular matter and taxes and similar circumstances was action and started decision proceed as a removal proceedings yes then they would have that claim that's what they exist in last year correct me if i'm not understanding this but the government's not trying to deport him he is still an l are is that right that's the problem you have let me finish yes but the government says that he was not he is not an lp are lawfully admitted because he wasn't lawfully admitted back then but now the government is stopped from denying his l p r status because of the five years so i mean it you know there's a lot of funny rules but aren't the rules then fairly clear the government is following the five year rule they're not trying to revoke his l p r status but they're saying that he didn't follow the rules when he came in is that isn't that what the situation is so prominent honors congress the rules of cause about unity then colleague as well judge but tanning at page nine says that petitioner can petition for an adjustment of status in effect i guess he would ask to be called an the reason that this individual now is in limbo they can't they can't remove his green card bill yet he can't get his citizenship and that's not what congress intended on is a very i ask you about about this the the problem on the other side is the rules seem to set up a bright line of join or a company and your guy getting sick on the plane that seems like a company but if twenty four days  early is ok then why not twenty four weeks or twenty four months what kind of standard could you use to say that you are accompanying someone if you are quite a long time ahead of them under the burnet basically there has not been a case in this country that said what exactly and this set of circumstances where the derivative comes before the principal and the principal actually arrives because the key in the test is this and this is if we anything out of these arguments the test is this if the principal has secured l p r the derivative has secured the test as on the principle not under derivative the case law that they signed to assign to is on the derivative to deal with criminal aliens the deal with individuals of never person invented it citizenship that the burden is on the applicant to show that they met all the requirements and turned all the square corners and that is correct they have not shown one case or on or under the set of circumstances where the principal actually came and became and it is a now p r and then the derivatives was not the opposite is true if the principal had committed fraud or did a perfect l unity what they're doing has not preserving family unity so this this situation this dilemma that they're in that they can't deport him right i mean you understand ship is very valuable i would be the first to say that but are lawfully admitted that's the government's position where you have to get around the lawfully admitted congress john would not just make laws just to make laws what is the purpose of the five years then what good do you what benefits does it give you that you have regulation they shouldn't have admitted your client when they did not know because he was not a company a company his father well they made a mistake right they made a mistake that could have been cured under section two twelve k your honor he could have at that time to could have gave  admitted now how do you get around the b i a decision you get around those decisions because those cases dealt with criminal aliens they do they dealt with criminal aliens your honor there's a distinction you can't commit fraud or call back a saying we're only doing this because it's a criminal alien and have to set aside this not apply the reg or the statute because these has no other reason to not be given citizenship other than that he was not lawfully admitted due to the right now that's  conclusion that there is no pain that is actually point for either so that being behaved what is the authority that you thirteen years later then saying he's not an l p r that's the only place the double non criminals that's the only case that dealt with l p r sprint suppose that been secured every other case that deals with his total different facts told different circumstances and i would agree wholeheartedly with the position of those rulings because they dull you can't just commit fraud on the government and then get away with and say hey i'm here now you can do nothing about it or the principal alien dies before they arrive and so that's a fundamental ruling in immigration now it please the court patricia gatekeeper representing the united states judge bugs you exactly captured the situation this young man entered the country twenty four days before his he he and his father knew that he was being allowed to enter the country as a law full permanent resident only if he accompanied or followed his father those were the terms of the visa he didn't a company or follow his father he preceded is father now the record here doesn't show why i came first his counsel says business matter that delayed his father but he was nineteen years old he was not a child who was brought here not knowing that he violated the rules he presumably knowingly heard not in compliance with the terms of his duties yes the officer who inspected him should have figured out that his father had not preceded him and should have denied him terry he should have been turned away at the border but he made a mistake and he allowed him in and that mistake was not discovered for five years well was not discovered for seventeen years but after five years a statute of limitations kicks in and the government is precluded from rescinding has lawful permanent resident status but it is not true as the petitioner would ha that because we can't rescind his lawful permanent resident status he therefore becomes a law whole permanent resident whose entry was regular it  year old develop the meaning of a company but the the sticking point for me which is on your side is if twenty four days is ok why not twenty four weeks or twenty four months they did i go back to the question i raised with your adversary though about judge battan he's saying that he could petition for an adjustment of status and he says he's tried and it's been denied are you familiar with any of that well there's certainly nothing in the record about that he also said just now that when he entered if one or both of the parties had noticed the problem he could have gotten a two twelve k waiver are you familiar with that i am and i don't think that's correct because because he would he would have to have been turned away now when he entered if it had been noticed he could have left the country said you know and that would have counted and that would have been the appropriate thing to do or any time in the next two years before he turned twenty one he could have left and mary entered because he had to be under twenty exactly if either ok go going back to judge but tanny statement you've said you're not familiar with what they have may have done and it's not in the record but look what do you think judge battan he was referring to in her opinion the case that she very lied on from the i talks about a person who entered the country not as an immigrant and allowed a person who had entered on a tourist visa and overstayed a tourist visa to adjust status to lawful permanent residence even though this point again but he can tell you he hasn't the judge potente uses the word about adjustment of status granting him l p r status but the problem here is he has l p r status actually but is there a thing which says you can adjust to an l p r lawfully admitted now you just don't think there's any way to do that and i don't think the case that sh because in that case they allowed adjustment of status for someone who had actually in time preceded her husband but she hadn't entered on an immigrant thesis in entered and i want to know what w what is the government's rationale for requiring that the i mean after all they gave an l p r status to the father and derivative leaked to the sun so what is the reason that he has to technically a company and why does it have to be so strict twenty one but i mean this is a case where the father in fact came in the case that your adversary side was yes the child comes first and the father dies and never comes to the country ok that's understandable but here the fa had come in and the father is now a naturalized citizen the but but congress has made very strict or all is about who can and her this person who's applying now was only eligible to come in and is a an accompanying or following dependent his father only guy that ability to enter because he was the brother i believe someone who had been allowed in as a member has nothing wrong with what the father did now going back out but continental congress has made very strict or all is about what degrees of relation and who it only applying in the case of an overstay initially you say that's a factual distinction but the the quotation once the principle gains permanent residence which did happen here the child is not precluded as a matter of law from adjusting status as a person accompanying or following to join so it would sound as though at least in principle they could adjust his i mean all the time we had just status to things that didn't really happen right so here you would adjust his status by saying that he that he accompanied i just don't want to give you a false assurance here well i mean they have or have assur going to say your adversary that is they actually tried it and had been denied as a matter of discretion and he may well be right i think it's likely that that would be denied among other things now he's not under twenty one anymore but i don't know we're trying to really go a jew dictate what happened in the past you would just i mean at least a clever lawyer would say we're not trying to make him twenty one again just know that these other questions may be your relevant as i understood from reading the end trails here this partially started out with the concern about his tax status but then that got fixed that it wasn't his problem somebody who stole his identity is that basically right i don't know why they dropped that but yes there was an alternate basis for denying administration and that was there is that what they dig him on to start with and then they uncovered this problem well i think they would have gone back and looked at all of the records in a naturalization exist sort of a technicality in that i mean does something cries out here sort of equity  can we do act what he or not you can't this supreme court has said and a number of times that the courts have no equitable power to confer naturalisation i think he might just be stuck because of what happened seventeen years ago yes well stuck i think that he entered a regularly he should not have been allowed to enter when he dead and because we didn't catch it soon enough he has been conferred the affective status of lawful permanent resident so he's going to be allowed to stay here permanently barring that he commits some crime that little allow to re a set of facts like that i think that the accompanying miner or other dependent would need to stay with the old person who is the only person who is permitted to enter as an immigrant or again the but what we should really happen in that case is that the agent or the immigration agent says you're a company name where is the person you're a company yeah he says he's else i'd just want to mention that there is a case that we supplied in our twenty eight j letter which is the only case where this issue of the definition of legal entry comes up in a naturalization case  did under twenty a j letter it's not different from all the other cases cited at pages eight and nine of our brief in that it says that the definition of points out arise in cases where there's been fraud or criminal conduct and that's because they in my view they had to because they arise in removal proceedings and there decisions are some useful language about how the statute of limitations prohibiting the precision of naturalization or the rescission if lawful permanent resident to the inland in molina versus holder the phrase accompanying a following to join congress intended to preserve the family nudity by permitting an alien who qualifies for an immigrant status to bring his family with them or to send for them in a we passes away before even hits us soil that makes logical sense in that but the same time congress intended for the family to be together and yana to go back to your question on our on our talent grief page seventeen we indicated  you have the power to fix this you are only individuals that can fix this you are the only in the individual they could possibly give justice to this the doctrine of absurdity gives you the power to do that and it says allows the score to avoid the absurd result namely citizens and goes on and on so i mean you have the power to address the specially when the results will be absurd that's not what congress one in congress wanted unity family family of unity and lastly the  the the decision if you look at the judge's decision she i really think she misunderstood the process of the l p r status she relied on the also versus us department of homeland security and their case basically again it was an individual that went through move the proceedings the government did exercise their right within the five year or the removal proceedings so yes then they can say you were not lawfully admitted but government you can know you can get it too if you don't start proceedings within five years then that you don't get to wait another thirty five forty years and then say when someone applies and say you get your denied the fact is imagine the outcome the government and congress never intended this if i wanted to have absolute control of our citizens we're going to become citizens of foreigners i would just make a mistake a way to whatever i want another five ten fifteen twenty twenty five years and say oh you're not lofted me you can't get your citizenship you can't get your citizenship you can't get your citizenship that's not what intended and what's not what congress intended and that's why the five years are is there you know congress cannot possibly look at every possible scenario factual person in history that's his citizenship that's not what congress wanted as it's up it's whole it's small it's principally an unfair it's unjust lastly there are waivers there are two twelve or there are waivers for criminal aliens there's different a whole bunch of different to twelve waivers the or he could obviously told of you need to go back the acid to that he really did there or who knows as a arriving alien that this word of joining following to join in thing of this nature it's very unfair to put it on the vulnerable immigrant coming into the united states especially when they must stop and they want the alien to pay the price for a council just what was that you said about the type of conversation you application whatever you had made my notes and see the attorney herself and asked for this then mr thomas was supposed to be on this case i have the e mail have to check on for a judge says basically here's who you need to contact it's up to them to do this so we did that we need to sent a letter asking for