of domestic violence in section two thirty seven eighty two you know why but mr goings on this has never been admitted to the united states he is not subject to the grounds of deportation the bord error in trying to add language to the statute in order to make this ground of pi's him the board found instead of accepting the statutory language convicted of an offense under that they should the statute should instead be read to include or that persons who have not been in that it don't face for example a person who's convicted of domestic violence can still be admitted to the united states a person is convicted of firearms and still be admitted this court in separate cases looking at a separate form of relief that that was the conversation chosen to treat persons who had been admitted with a different and had applied a different amount of responsibility to them and quote that they enjoy substantial rights and privileges not shared by other aliens and therefore it is arguably proper to hold them to a higher standard and level of responsibility unquote so this court has already addressed the issue of its precisely it regarding a question that yes persons who have been admitted fa cut back by far the number of persons who qualify they used that the person in the past used to have to demonstrate that they were to suffer stream hardship to himself or to other family members but congress changed and said now extreme hardship is not the exceptional extremely unusual hardship and in no longer matters whether it's hardship that person has to be hardship to qualifying family member but most important congress lies in its expressed language is that the person must think convicted of a crime of visa after ten years it would be eligible to apply for cancellation and the reason is because their conviction did not occur after admission it be absurd for congress they know this person doesn't qualify even though they're awfully allowed in this country because they have a domestic violence conviction when they expressed language that the statute says that the conviction must have occurred at any time after admission likewise in this case petitioners never been admitted and that is why he is not subject to the grounds of portability first of all we argue that while the government states the plain language does control the substance of their arguments show to the contrary they try to bring it congressional intent they try to read additional language into the area so we believe that this absence of the government developmental disabilities is that he'll least have the opportunity to apply the government is arguing that he's not even eligible to apply but this court should pursuant to its previous instructions i cannot just read the manner you fine good morning again john cunningham from the justice department hearing on the half of the attorney general may please the court i'd like to begin by simply noting a couple of things what was not good for you in this case is whether this petitioner was in fact convicted of the crime rigorously before the board an immigration judge has been abandoned on appeal this case turns on a very fine question of statutory construction which is what is the meaning of the phrase under section two thirty seven eighty two of the immigration act  the supreme court heard arguments earlier this week on the meaning of the word some paragraph in the truth in lending act and justice briar during the arguments said that when he was asked to perform this kind of close statutory construction begins by assuming the that your hypothetical english speaking martian sat down at a table in nothing about immigration or the immigration act or cancellation of removal and was asked what does the phrase convicted of an offense under section two thirty seven eight two mean to you his first answer might be what you can about judge nelson he might say well it sounds like has the guy then convicted of violating section two thirty seven two and after that might be well good try good gas but that doesn't work because the section is not  plane reading language of the a plain meaning analysis of the provision in question and came out with a perfectly ordinary un strained commonsense result which was that the word under means in effect listed on there or referred to or covered by section two thirty seventy two and that is our submission to you today are the petitioners approach is to roll in other considerations such as whether the conviction occurred before element of whether the alien was admitted or not it simply says these are the crimes that are covered this is how we define them the crime of domestic violence has as a specific reference to title eighteen of the us code that's the definition of the crime in question and when you're trying to decide whether or a particular alien is eligible for cancellation of removal you look to whether he committed a crime listed covered by section two thirty seventy two in this case domestic violence you come out very quickly with an answer  whether he is in fact subject to removal and that's true because although section two twelve which covers ground in this ability and section two thirty seven which covers grounds for deep or to portability includes similar kinds of offens considering that question was a particular alien for example properly charged and probably found somewhere to remove all the question of whether he was admitted or not becomes very important i agree with my colleague to that extent the phrases after admission become very important if you commit a crime of domestic violence after admission then you may be properly charged with something to deportation under that tricky to particular provision of section two thirty seven but here was simply talking about the grounds of proper eligibility for a particular form of discretionary relief cancellation of removal we're not talking about movability and whether you should be charged as an and as a in the civil alien or a portable alien we are simply talking about whether the the limitations on eligibility for cancellation of a move that congress put in place cover anyone who has been convicted of a crime falling under three specific sections the congress history and this gets back to the chevron step one issue that you raised judge thomas there is an ongoing dispute within the supreme court over whether it's proper to look at legislative history when you are considering a plain language analysis of scalia and i think justice thomas would like it very much if you're one step one excluded legislative history entirely but the majority of their colleagues on the court haven't bought into that quite yet and i think that's pretty clear in prague and winds and you can step one you do legislative we suggested that some guidance on this question can be taken from looking at other provisions of the act i would like to draw the court's attention to other provisions within the cancellation of removing provision first section  perfectly permissible for the court to look to whether and and an anomalous result would obtain if the petitioners position is is accepted by the court and i think it's perfectly reasonable to say that we're not going to do that