permanent residence which required that within a few conclusion of the two year period that he file of the tuition to remove the conditions on his residence status that form would have been known as an i seventy five one after on i guess i'm going to answer this one to two elements first of all the immigration judge advocate hearing said he was treating this essentially has a legal issue and that's throughout  transcript today there are forty five fifty five and then had at the ministry to record page sixty one lines twenty three twenty five the immigration judge answers that question virtually directly himself he says quote i have no legal authority to review the district records decision and if you go to the next page it's apparent parents that at least on the withdrawal but you could get review of a denial of adjustment of status and remove proceedings if they had denied him granted his petition he would go back and in effect he would get a ruling and they would either grant or deny him and he go from there that's correct in fact they are thirty four the judge also said well if you have and he didn't object to that so it seems to me that maybe they were negligent but i but there's clear law that says there can't be enough to stop all against the government and particularly against the agency here for negligence like if they give an immigrant negligent legal advice about what to do so what is the evidence of a term of misconduct  might be negligence that might be gross negligence but how do you get affirmative misconduct which is i understand it is sufficient who is necessary to get  e our position is that he meets staff requirements because the letter from immigration service doesn't exactly say that they've that they've necessarily done this i think that they knew that the recording him in this jeopardized position secondly that then i noticed agents intended and we believe that this was going to be the outcome not that they were necessarily trying to deport her say but it appears that way they know that the immigration judge would likely have relied upon their decision if he was eventually placed in proceedings which he wants and i think that they knew that element and the claim himself was ignorant of the true facts in this case about what is legal to be sworn obligations were and i think that's and he was from romania engine you know when you look at the application the seats just scribble things and it's you know hurt somebody well there is that letter in the file there where they threw where they described as earlier in the proceedings being like a dead skunk in the road or something like that or east road kill but we reference that in the warning mantras court james crimes for the attorney general motors i think the question for the court ultimately comes down to whether or not mr washington had conditional lawful permanent resident status and i may have to explain why that is address the court's inquiry about affirmative misconduct but i believe that the sense of the questions before the court and for our purposes whether or not the seizing of the determination that he withdrew his application is correct or not really doesn't matter what really status then the immigration judge would have held the proceedings while he so loudly i asked to adjudicate the waiver application and of course the immigration judge would have jurisdiction explicitly to review any resulting denial but if ns correct it's that it was made and what could he do about it and so the question really comes down to whether or not he had the status but if but if we conclude that the elements to cre government to stop it from denying that he had that i think that he may have had to stop the claims from the time of the stamp was put into his passport until november when he was told you don't have the status that two three month window that he would have he could have relied on the stamp well as his obligation to show the affirmative misconduct was judged google says it's a very difficult standard we do have the five fifty one stamp power and some courts saying anyone you can see that it's a district director who has the ultimate authority to confer that status obviously doesn't interview all the all the applicants and you can see if you look to the to the left of where the district or signs are that says recommended by so review the determination that it was withdrawn the application was withdrawn and i don't think that that mr washington actually preserve that issue if you look at his nose to appeal to the board and just briefly before he doesn't argue that the immigration judge had a pages and events because of the records of course the immigration judge determination that he didn't was never confirmed the status because the immigration judge had no authority to review and withdraw all because washington is not preserve the issue we believe his position should be  renew anything except for the very last sentence which says if you fail to depart from the united states by the date specified proceedings will be instituted to enforce your departure you may be renewed your application birgitte for status as a permanent resident during such perceives when throughout the litigation before the immigration judge an immigration judge said as a matter of why i don't this i five five one has no the stamp has no meaning thank you have your argument in mind we will go back ourselves now that you both