there are this case arises because there are two separate and independent offices that make the same determination about whether or not a person is inadmissible under section two twelve a second that illegalization officer when he decided this application in august of one nine hundred eighty nine properly and lawfully made a decision approving the application and third given that fact the immigration judge and subsequent move over deportation proceedings has to accept that statute itself is very clear first of all the statute says that there shall be no administrative review administrative or traditional review of a determination respecting a legalization application application that would like the application was denied you can't review it it doesn't say that there's no review terminating two grand  again our position is that the immigration service can review and undo a decision granting legalization but it's got to do that in accordance with the regulations that is to say it's got to go back and reopen that case in front of the legalization office or the administrative appeals regulations that that it's the general regulation that applies to all applications pending before the immigration service  three i believe it's one of three point five yes one of three point five allows the immigration service to go back and reopen a case in which a decision has been made again that's that's the rule that applies with respect t pending before the immigration office including legalisation office and the administrative appeals unit in any event when we submit that the legalization officer in august of one nine hundred eighty nine when he made that decision was acting properly and lawfully we don't know it and of course the immigration service that has the burden of proving that the decision was made improperly the immigration service has the burden of a stab  ing that the legal status should be taken away we don't know what the what the legalization record contains because that was not submitted into the removal proceedings but again we have t presuppose or assume that the agency acted in accordance with its regulations in august of one thousand nine hundred nine the legalization officers certainly could have properly determined that a conviction for gru it's our flour position that the immigration judge when he when he gets this case and remove all proceedings has to accept the fact that the perp the person in front of him is in fact a permanent resident he can't go back and undo the decision approving the legalization application now we submit also that the immigration judge in this context does not have authority to decide whether or not the person deportable under two thirty seven a one a the provision that says a person deportable if he or she was inadmissible at the time of adjustment of status where the allegation is the time of the just when the status is the approval of the legalisation application immigration judge does not have the authority or the jurisdiction to make that determination but even if the immigration judge does have authority to to make that determination all that says is that the person is deportable that does not take away his or her legalization status that's a separate decision made exclusively by the legalisation office in conclusion we would submit that the board's decision has to be reversed and the decision made by the immigration judge approving the two twelve c application approving the waiver for a long term permanent residents should be a brief actually specifically states this dealing with motions three open motions to reopen reconsider and other than special agricultural worker and legalization cases so that actual section the regulations does not appl you know if the government says it will go to mediation we're not going to agree to anything there's no point going to the mediation but if the government would be willing to go and consider the various possible solutions to it doesn't mean you have think look at the circumstances that there is there is in fact the reopening process in the context of legalization applications there's also this research as a recession process the the regulations relating to the legalization program do allow for the recession of a grant of permanent resident status under the legalization program that's in the eight c f r section two forty five a and section two forty five a point three zero that allows for research and that those we sit in proceedings if the government decides that it wants to rescind permanent resident status under the legalization program then it does that under the statute section two forty six and those recession perceived proceedings have to be brought within five years or so with respect to the recession process there is some repose there that is to say if those rescission proceedings  period after the five year recession period to deport somebody on the basis of two thirty seven a one a though that case law all comes out of the general adjustment of status provision under section two forty five not under the special legalization program so again it's i just want to read reiterate that it's our position that in the legalization context that that the proper way is not for the immigration judge to make the determination that legalization was improper but that that has to be done on this under the special legalization rules then to him i have no further