batter on our counters united states versus anthony campbell claim for a stop of deportation the immigration judge told him that he had no claim unless he could prove he was a citizen with a passport is a viable it is a vote is it a viable claim yes your honor that's what i'd like to address right now this he had a viable claim of the stoppel mr campbell had received an immigrant visa as a child of his adopted mother who was a naturalized citizen when he was eleven years old the visa incorrectly classified him as i r two signifying that he was  view i don't know probably i mean we're not contending that it was deliberate but it was it was an error it doesn't have to be deliberate it was it was an egregious error because it was highly consequential it had catastrophic consequences for mr campbell with our two status he derived automatic citizenship but his actual status as an orphan adopted a broad requirement that an application be filed and this was as we understand a pro forma application it s meant to be reliant on a visa classification confers status is the official document is intended to be relied upon and anyone with knowledge of the codes being told what that these a code was or looking at that these a code any ins official who she called up on the phone a lawyer even maybe someone at the adoption agency would have told her that that signified that he he derived automatic citizenship is there any evidence that she talked to anyone about well there were isn't there isn't evidence yet but the court tonight hearing the pop this is the problem mrs campbell that the adopted mother is dead but with at a hearing anthony campbell could testify his wife has known him since he was fourteen would testify there's an affidavit there is that he always believed that he always believed understood that he was a citizen that he was shocked absolutely shocked to learn documents that were requested and would be requested again in the file the applet for the for example the application papers what what the and what the file of his sister his sister who is also adoption looked like and a really important fact here is that you know the ins itself well that he filed a motion and it was denied in the papers he asked for all this in the argument he asked for getting more documents from exactly and whether anything was ever filed for her or anything like that because really a really important fact here this highly circus like compelling circumstantial fact is that the ins itself did determine it had the whole file it knew everything there was to know in the file it determined that mr campbell was a citizen in one thousand nine hundred and eight based on its own mistake so if if it was if if the ins couldn't couldn't figure out there was in the state how could julian was it is a totally different kind of case it's not and stop all of deportation it's asking the court to grant citizenship to a whole class of immigrants of philippine immigrants by stoppel and the court conduct affirmative misconduct is not does not mean deliberate it does not mean something terrible it just means an on the state in which the immigrant was taught something that was absolutely incorrect they had serious consequences if he relied on that they relied on that with serious consequences that's in court now that's in her and that's an moser think the subsequent cases that the court relies on to argue that it's been just they also said it was unintentional unintentional justice as it was in that case it was this was this is i think or worse three or four page three or four and what happened in cornell was that they feel they could be arguably that would be more negligent than this this was an affirmative misclassification writing in two different places stamping and writing on the visa the wrong code the  absolutely incorrect code which has serious consequences and corneille the the affirmative miss misconduct the affirmative misconduct was simply that the failure to warn it was the failure to warn that was arguably more a kind of a lapse or negligence and what was done here with the with the consular agent was charged under the regulations with putting the correct code on the visa and put the incorrect code on good morning on hers my name is tell me again williams and i'm going to sustain us attorney and i represent the united states in this appeal i also represented the government before the trial court the governor respectfully submit to the district court correctly denied to defend its motion to dismiss the indictment and that is because at its core the defendant cannot establish a claim of equitable stoppel the turning to i think the two critical documents in this case are one the document at eight hundred and twenty which is the immigration form that has the incorrect classification as well as the documented age of forty three dollars which is the notice of campbell that that that the ins who approved her application to basically bring the defendant to the united states and what's critical but that document in one thousand and three dollars which is the one document we can classification which any anyone in and in the immigration field would know were forest to a child of an adoptive parent not a child of a biological parent moreover that's the only document we can be we can have confidence she actually received turn to the document that has the i r to misclassification i think on its face there is not any support that miss campbell would have relied on this document which be critical to establish echo stop a claim st off the irony to classification as conceded before the lower court defended conceded no lay person would know what i or two meant accordingly no lay person presumably immigration counsel would know that i are to ask questions about the nature of relationship with with the friend and moreover on the face of the document it indicates the mother's name is yvonne indicates the father's name is cyril neither of those would have been true but the individual bringing a document namely the defendant's adoptive mother's name is norma so on the face of the document any professional who she would have taken this document to w that there were errors here moreover on the face of the document in the middle of the page indicates that about this piece that upon arrival in the united states must be surrendered to the united states immigration officer so i think that undercuts even the presumption that she ever would have received this document to rely upon it the document which was produced a defendant and discovery from the government's internal files not something that the defendant had i think undercut the argument that she had relied upon it because on its face it indicates that this beast must be surrendered to immigration officials upon entry into the us indicating she would even have had this document and she didn't have this that briefing course so i think the argument is if your government and mine can conclude erroneous lior not that someone is a citizen based on the same documentation then why is it a stretch of the imagination to conclude that his adoptive mother or anybody else could arrive in a similar conclusion what i think you're out of the with regard to the ninety eight notification there  eighteen so the question is this what about these documents here were these documents are permanently misled miss campbell not whether the government itself had it understanding and the two then one document that we can be assured that she received correctly classifies the defendant as the child of adoptive parent which if she had taken that document the one doctor we know she received to any legal professional there would an appropriate classification that classification one on one b one f is correct that indicates in the ins code that that the defendant is the child of an adoptive parent moreover this document is from the ins the visa that indicates the correct classification is from the i'm sorry department from the state department your honor i think that is a critical distinction so on the on the  document indicating the incorrect classification it's a document from the state department that has a clerical error and on its face indicates that this very must be surrendered to an immigration officer so i think it undercuts any argument that one she ever would have had this document which was st produced in discovery in the criminal matter or two that she going to reasonably relied on it to mr campbell's detriment the one document that we know she did have is fully correct on its face and  the court were to continue reading and that st paragraph also indicates that eligible to eligibility for admission or adjustment is determined only when an application therefore is made to an immigration officer so that on its face indicates that further action is required to just one status and that's the one document we know in the record she would have had to think the record that's relevant here was settled by nine hundred and eighty dollars which is when the defendant would turned eighteen what happened subsequently or his own understand it would be relevant for the court to terminations as to whether he has an equitable stoppel argument in this matter and i think further or speaking to the fundamental fairness  deportation proceedings the burden would have been upon was upon the defendant to prove his citizenship so i think if the court is looking into whether or not those proceedings were fundamentally fair it would have been his burden and at that  those proceedings the defendant was an able to get in contact with the adoptive mother so even at that time he couldn't establish he had the facts were already set in stone he couldn't access any additional facts his mother wasn't available n of something else but but they have to eat they must have to make a copy and give it back to you because everywhere anyone travels they have to keep their visa with them if anyone's ever travelled with a visa you know that your visa is with you in the passport it's not taken away then you have otherwise you have no no no right to be here that was his right to be here that was the operative document they gave him a right to be here not the letter sent to mrs campbell saying we've approved you under another code that she wouldn't have known what it meant the code that they stamped on his visa was the official code and if he'd if they took his visa they would have to give him back a copy or give him another card a smaller version of it to put in his passport delay delay on an application not writing a regulation that that the court found wasn't the the agency wasn't required to write it's nothing like an absolutely incorrect affirmative incorrect classification  that has life life consequences and if i could just have a few a few more seconds as i was preparing for this argument i i believe i uncovered the fact that in fact ira two probably doesn't only refer to biological children it probably includes the one class of adopted children that is entitle to automatic citizenship which the government concedes and it's fre and thirty one dollars there is one category of adopted child that gets automatic derive citizenship and that's where the child is living with the mother the adoptive mother in the united states when she naturalizes so that's another another issue that was government's whole argument well anybody would have known if they knew he was adopted no the ins knew he was adopted they are this is what got me got me going on this because i was trying to figure out how the ins could have made the mistake the ins knew he was adopted and they saw the error too cold enough no red flag went off because in fact i think i or two does include that one class of adopted children well though that depended on facts that were not a clear right the right and we have to have an expert an immigrant immigration expert testify about what these codes meant