national master calendar held in july of two thousand and two the immigration judge was told by me and by counsel for the government that we were aware of a prior recession proceeding that had been brought against mr began several years earlier and that we both agree that it was no longer an issue as the time has elapsed for that to be effective the government specifically told the court on the record that it would not be pursuing that matter the judge said that he would set the ca over to another master counter hearing which is a preliminary or an arraignment type of hearing and that he would retrieve the old records from the archives he would take a look at it and if he determined that there were any issues that they would be brought to the parties attentions and quote they shall be fully litigated if necessary at the next master calendar hearing which was approximately two months later in september of two thousand and two the judge took the bench and announced without any argument or anything that or any notice that he found that the records show that the evidence against mr media was sufficient to found that to find that there was no relief vailable to him he prejudice this particular case well ok that's the second part of my argument mr miller was prejudiced because he was completely unable to argue for any relief from deportation almost two years prior he was nineteen years old got arrested for the marijuana charge at that time while he was still in custody because of the marijuana charge not been convicted the government the immigration service misrepresent as in saying no i have not he simply left it blank he was interviewed and in his adjustment context and the government chose not to explore had they explored it and had over your argument one of  because it's a very drastic think it goes back to the date of admission in the deportation cause and this is very similar to the dissolution of marriage you want to moment you have five grounds that you that you can pick from and if you don't fit into those you can still get divorced but you're going to be stuck with a divorce and it's not admonish you know it's today when you get divorced well this is the same situation you know deportation matter there are several cases including the ninth circuit and walk from the that say that the status terminates when the hammer drops and the words when the final administrative decision is issued in this case that decision was issued in two thousand to not have an issue in resident by the same token mr reed his status was never rescinded although all the government had every opportunity to do it when when the recession proceedings were dismissed without prejudice in one thousand nine hundred ninety five january of gender april of one thousand nine hundred five they still had eighteen months on that five year statute to act they decided not to do it seven years later they bring the removal proceedings which are what happened today so why is he eligible for there an abuse of discretion or pilots and due process when all that was an issue was a legal question that wasn't the only was not permitted to present evidence and there was an opportunity to make the argument i think the i a e a in fact the argument was not really required was just not made to the b i and as your your honor pointed out i mean the argument would have to be logically that there's some kind of an unstoppable for the government not being being aware of the conviction but not having done anything about it i just don't see how that the elements of a scuffle are not here that they haven't been raised they haven't been alleged that there was some kind of misconduct i hear the argument i was surprised when the immigration judge told me what the law was and refused to proceed further as a result of his reading of my prior fi thank you your arse first with regards to i was surprised because the judge told me that he had reviewed by my file and told me what the law was that's not exactly what happened this is more akin to a criminal  court finding at an arraignment hearing that he has the judge has reviewed the evidence that the government intends to sue niederer the complaint of the arguments is that you know what this guy doesn't have a let stand now why take it to a jury why waste the time  this court under no circumstances would countenance that kind of behavior from a criminal court and should not countenance it from an immigration court the point is the government's response to that is you  know ok we were all surprised where's the prejudice here if you're not in fact eligible for the relief that you wanted to apply the pressure is very what you are because he was granted permanent residence regardless of whether it was proper or improper it was granted and the government was on notice and failed to properly pursue the rescission proceedings at that point because they didn't do that and he was a permanent resident it continued until such time in two thousand and two when he was finally ordered deported so he was eligible for to trial see that's that is the prejudice that is what would have been briefed to the immigration judge had he given us the opportunity to do it instead of just blowing us off at the master county here where you are out of time thank you very much thank you just argued is submitted we will next your arguments