petitioner is not a smuggler of aliens as defined in the immigration act that has always been defined as doing that act bringing people from outside the country into the country for a fee the petition only help his immediate family and his children on two occasions to cross in the united states the last time being some twenty two years ago turning to the definition of the registry statute under eight u s c twelve fifty nine there's a limitation of classes of illions that are eligible in other words it defines smuggler of aliens the government argues in the b i a look to eleven eighty two eighty six easy for the definition of smuggler of aliens petition or would argue that eleven eighty to eighty two each would be a much better definition of what a smuggler violence has always been under the act that it's something done it by a professional or done for a fee or things to that extent counsel that's in the registry statute cross reference to the current definition of alien smuggler not the one in one nine hundred fifty eight right but you can look to the there is no definition given after in so far it just lists a category of aliens and it doesn't see ilian smuggling it says smugglers of aliens it's different wording words have meanings in the congress chose not to change that and didn't specifically cite two eleven eighty two eighty six it just says in general eleven eighty two a which includes arguably a six smuggler billions but also a two each which is the trafficker section and under that analysis he is not a significant trafficker and person she is not a court smuggler billions is that term is being used in the registry statute and therefore he is eligible for registry and in the year i'm going to follow your argument i just am very sympathetic to the argument but this is a difficult case for me because i'm while i'm sympathetic i'm trouble getting where you want us to get but so your argument is just as this does if the cross reference in section two forty nine were the alien smugglers instead of smugglers of aliens you would we would get a different answer right i think that the government would have a good argument and you would look at eleven aid to six which defines alien smuggling but the statute reads or under section two twelve a insofar as a relates to criminal blah blah blah about dot dot or smugglers of aliens and two twelve in its current incarnation refers to the current definition of alien meets the same definition it doesn't say again alien smuggling it says smugglers of aliens is different wording it must have some sort of meaning so to twelve so as to twelve a age to twelve eight seems to be what the registry statute was looking at when it was never amended and there are some arguments on both sides where it was amended or what you should look to but in any case i think arguably he's not a smuggler of aliens and if the court does not agree with that have it here in front of me could you just read to me the wording of a two age colluder with such a trafficker in severe forms of trafficking in persons as defined in section seventy one or two of title twenty two is it inadmissible and there's a definition of severe forms of trafficking under twenty twenty you now get the argument ok i'm pretty doesn't work very well for me but i get it ok thank you ok and if the court was not to find that to be true and assuming that the court does find the petitioners this quote smuggler of aliens under el sixty then there is a waiver available netware was under eleven eighty two d eleven the board mentions in their decision that there is no waiver available under the registry statute of course it's not it's technically correct it's not in the register statute but it's there in the statute under eleven needed to deal levon which is a waiver available for people accused of alien smuggling there seems to be four groups of aliens that are eligible for a waiver and it's divided into two classes the first class are returning lawful permanent residence which does not apply to this particular petition or the second class is divided into three subsections the first is alien seeking admission to meet a relative beneficiary seeking adjustment and preference class beneficiary seeking adjustment of status if you look at the statute each one of those subcategories is in the disjunctive or petitioners under the first subsection he's an alien seeking admission an alien seeking admission under registry and as an alien seeking admission under registry he can apply for the waiver and the petitioner again only smuggle it's never been argued that he smuggled anybody else other than his spouse and his children in the united states again two occasions so since he's seeking admission be a registry and he is eligible for a waiver even smoking waiver under two eleven eighty two deal levon the case should be remanded so we can apply for that waiver the government spouse or parent who is u s citizen a lawful permanent resident which he doesn't have i saw that in the sunken petition but he would never get his green card at the consulate until he was ten years outside the country which so he said one hears all that's really good morning may it please the court ethan davis for the attorney general the board in the immigration judge correctly denied the application for a registry for two equally sufficient reasons first mr  and second mr kerr us code did not continuously reside in the united states since one thousand nine hundred two i'd like to take those issues in that order before you do that why is the government going after this guy he wrote of there are a lot of there are a lot of bad guys in this world he does not appear to be one of them your honor we don't take any of this lightly the petitioner was convicted or was charged with extreme dui in two thousand and thirteen and that's how he came to the government's attention it's not like he has no criminal honor it's under arizona law the testimony was that he had five or six beers before he got into the into the car i also point out that is wife and four of the six children according to the record are in mexico the petitioner speaks spanish and you know i don't think this is the kind of extremely irrational decision that you might have in mind well i don't know whether to rational or not  still in mexico according to the record four of his six children and his wife currently live in mexico but there is this citizen son in this country and where i believe the other two children are here in the united states one is a citizen and i'm not sure about the status of the other one but he does have a us citizen son here in the united states all right and he i'd like to  it explicitly chose to use a general cross reference to section eleven eighty to the one nine hundred fifty eight congress knew that section eleven eighty two could be and likely would be updated over the years and if congress had wanted to tie the registry statute to the hundred fifty eight version of section eleven eighty two it could have said so even if you know my second response is that the plain language of the one nine hundred ninety act resolves to question the one nine hundred ninety statute explicitly of states that the changes would apply quote to individuals entering the united states on or after june first one thousand nine hundred one the petitioner last entered the united states in one thousand nine hundred four and finally statutory interpretation is not archaeology the us code is full of cross references and people should be able to know what the law means by reading the statutes on the books they shouldn't have to excavate the code by identifying to date every law was enacted and the status of all of the cross references on that date i'd like to respond also to the petitioners argument about eight to each which i don't believe was an argument that was made in the other side's brief but i took a look at that provision it talks about trafficking it doesn't talk about section deal levon deal levon creates two different categories of aliens who are eligible for the waiver the first are aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residents who temporarily proceeded abroad voluntarily can really gain a button circa one sigyn to mention the petitioner is not an alien seeking admission or adjustment of status as an immediate relative or immigrant under section eleven fifty three flies mission i think that the statue creates two categories your honor i think if i understand the petitioner's argument he's arguing that it creates more than two categories of aliens who are these readings or about the waiver argument there's an equally independent basis to deny the application here and that's the continuous residence requirement all right with respect to continuous why is that case applicable here your honor it's not factually identical to the circumstances here but the considerations that the court related there apply equally here that there like here the petitioner lived in mexico for an extended period of time there it was thirteen months here it was seven months it's true like your honor says that that they're the petitioner paid taxes in mexico and here there's no evidence in the record that the petitioner paid taxes in mexico  farm that's correct he was paid by his father on his family farm i would point out that in monza font as your honor there was evidence that the petitioner had actually left items personal items in the united states in this case there is no to choose one of the other if that's the question he's clearly in the united states if the question is uninterrupted stay that's a different one but if you let me say one and literally other that's easier as an easier question than the law actually was well your honor the statute defines residence as the place of general abode the place of general of abode of a person means his principal actual dwelling place in fact during the five times that he left the united states he is principal actual dwelling place in fact was in mexico not here and the statute says without regard to intent the only testimony in the record about his connection to the united states during those periods is that he intended to return but the statute next case this morning united states