please the court joseph hoar of representing petitioner minta i'd like to reserve a possible three minutes for rebuttal ok the question before the court on this appeal is simply a matter of statutory construction namely does eight us see a live in eighty two is seven properly applied to an alien who is present without admission but who has not made any application for admission and we submit that it does not that instead the proper construction of the statutory term at the time of application for admission refers to the literal physical act of presenting oneself to the immigration officer at the border or at the airport presenting your passport and saying here i am let me i least five reasons your honor first of all it comports with the plain meaning of the of the expression at the time of application for admission reference to a time indicating something that can be pinned down to a particular time rather than an abstract status that has no time that's for that's that's a that's it it's a legal question right and we don't dispute that he has the status that he that is properly deemed an applicant for admission but the question is what does that mean and what's the how far does that extend to to so demon the purpose of that statute that deems amiss an applicant for admission is for procedural purposes to put him in a particular track with respect to his removal proceedings to put him in the truck under section eleven eighty two and not under the other track for someone who has been admitted to some of the pursuit the rules are different the burden of proof is different the grounds for removal are different because he's deemed an applicant for admission that is the purpose of that section and the deeming him an applicant it's a different purpose where you look at the question of making an application for for admission your it would be when you're basically wrenching the statutory language apart from its purpose and applying it somewhere where it was not intended to be applied you have in the you have the statutory definition of the term confirms that definition of the term application for admission and admission talks about lawful entry upon inspection by an officer you have the use of that same term at the time of application for admission used in nearby sections and particularly sections eleven eighty one and eleven eighty four where it's talking about presenting your documents talking about meeting with the immigration officer all of that is consistent with you know with the consequence of accepting your argument would that be would remain potentially subject to removal on other grounds grounds that are applicable to somebody who's who's who's already in for example back at the back at the time when this first arose and when he was f criminal grounds or public charge grounds whatever other grounds may apply would apply the only one that would not apply is is this one were were different you're now the a seven but that's the only one that has been ordered removed and so that's that's the one that is before the court right now could then turn around and say well however under this next paragraph you're all removable anyway the intent to preserve that that population in the cinema until such time as a workable federal status could be set up for them in the two year that was allowed to get that set up and that was set up would be would be pointless because they would all be removable before any of that happened we've cited the case recently just a week ago we filed a twenty eight chain letter to the court citing the case distinguished the court and why and piece said look just because you are a constructive applicant for admission it doesn't mean that you are applying for a mission the same logic and the same result should obtain in this case finally i would say that the government's construction which is it i think what most clearly demonstrates the error of the government's position is that it makes that entire phrase statutory language at the time of application for superfluous if you take that out of the statute the government's the government's result that anyone because they're present without admission is therefore applying for the mission i that if that there is accepted there is no reason to have that phrase in there at the time of application for admission if you put it in or you leave it out you reach the same result under the government's construction therefore under that construction that language means nothing there's no reason for it to be there and it's clearly intended to be there it stands out like a sore thumb to the point that it's awkward to read the sentence with that in there it's obviously meant to be there and meant to be an additional restriction that wouldn't be there otherwise and since under the government's construction it might as well not be there that if the statute just read any immigrant who is not in possession of a valid unexpired visa is inadmissible it already you're already just because you're on eleven eighty two you're already limited to the class of aliens up with where the government is at where where anybody whether they're making an application or not an actual application or not is is inadmissible but by putting it in your limits in the ground of inadmissibility to people actually making an application for admission longer right so why would that be the time the time he's applied for admission if that's the time then that would be the time for anyone or any alien who is finds himself in that situation of being of being a person without a machine and so it would be it would again it would mean there's no there's no need to specify an applicant an immigrant at the time of application for  good morning your honour's just burns on behalf of the respondent the attorney general minta admits that he was never admitted to the united states and he's not in possession of a valid entry document nevertheless he claims that he should not be subject to removal and he should be allowed to remain in the united states in perpetuity he is incorrect under eleven eighty two eighty seven eight there are three requirements that the airlines an immigrant that he has applied for admission and he lacks a valid entry document the only issue in this case is whether he  apply for admission and he did there are only two saddest as in which in an immigrant can be in they can either be admitted or an applicant for admission minto admits that he was never admitted therefore he is an applicant for admission the language in eleven eighty two is that you are an applicant for a mission even if you don't apply for admission correct your honor the distinguished distinction between admitted an applicant for admission is is whether you go into whether you're found removable under ground under eleven eighty two or twelve twenty seven and there's different burdens of proof and availability of relief depending on which section you're charged with and that's really the only distinction between the two grounds  were already there when the law took effect but there is no loophole if you if you sneak in and somebody who had entered the united states without admission would also be deemed an applicant for admission i mean anybody there's only two status is that he can be and so he either has to be admitted or an applicant for admission and he hasn't shown that he was either and he doesn't get to choose whether or not he is an applicant for admission by virtue of him room when he appeared before the immigration judge he again was an applicant for admission that had to prove that there was a lawful basis for him to remain in the united states or be admitted to the united states in the first place he didn't go before the immigration judge in lawful status on the transition date had it to your grace period in order to lock legalize their status now in our briefs we talk mostly about sixty one which is the grace period under eleven eighty two eighty six for people present without admission but if you look at eleven eighteen zero six e two there was a similar provision in place for people who had a work visa issued by the us the end of my government and if even though that wasn't a us visa those people had those visas were valid for two years and those individuals had two years to apply for a us based visa or work permit to remain in c n n my so you've got two years to complete the problems we have it was well advertised mr mental himself applied for parole in place twice which was another provision that just put in place which deemed people who are lawfully present in c m i on the effective date of a deem them admitted so then no longer they would no longer fall under the law of an eighty to remove ability grounds it was for parole in place and mr meant to apply for that twice however both applications were denied because he wasn't in lawful status on the effective date of c n r of the c n r a because his status was based on his his status and c m i was based on his wife and when he and his wife were convicted of marriage fraud they lost their status  to stay in the united states but he didn't do anything for that to your period now granted he was placed in removal proceedings a year in but again he wasn't eligible for any of these provisions that congress provided for because he was an unlawful status on the he was actually charged with being present without admission and eliminated to a six so what's the statute provides a defense that if you're lawfully present understand in my law you're not removable on that basis he did defend against that that is not a part of this case that goes to the question if it goes to anything at all it goes to the question of his lawful status under c n n law and that pertains only to the eleven eighty two eighty six charge which was not sustained the government has as has admitted that apply for that he has applications for that were denied not because of anything to do with his status but because of the removal proceedings the removal proceedings were premature before he had the opportunity to apply for this parole now then once he applied this on star urine or move the proceedings we can't we can't let you do it if the removal proceedings are terminated he will apply for that he will he will seek relief from any from any disability that his conviction may put him under if that is unsuccessful and if removal proceedings are instituted again which they could be this time i think based on because of just the time not sufficient time had passed there are remedies available to him which could allow him either to stay or to leave without deportation to leave without the long term bar would would would cause and would allow him potentially to come back within some shorter period of time seek waiver of the criminal conviction there's a lot of remedies that are available to him and a lot of avenues that would be available but for this application of an incorrect statutory ground to