a permanent resident however that it would take some time for that process to complete it is really wonderful i misremembering that that she she applied for cancellation of removal so that is that right well no she she right based on not having ten years and the basis for cancellation of removal would be what she did see cancellation removal dinging i believe that she had been erroneous lee advised by her counsel blow that that she could qualify with only seven years and they were not aware of the fact that it was she trying to get cancellation of removal from the i j a she was trying to get an opportunity to adjust her status from the years become relevant i don't believe it was so i think that it was  well with respect sir i don't believe that the i j actually went through all that thought process i believe what she said merely was that she recognized on the record that mr martinez was married to legal permanent resident she then observed that no petition it's five years of six years if it's seven years that's what it takes my condition is that at that point the judge would have a legal duty to apply the factors in paris to exercise her discretion whether to grant a further continuance and we submit that even if it was five years in constant no inconvenience to the immigration court because there is no necessity to have this meeting its time then every six months or a year to see what the status of her application is her counsel could easily send in a husband first has to file it is not it is not for her to file and i'm one thirty petition and she is not eligible to file a petition with the forty five intil her husband first piles the i want but they can be filed simultaneously with your husband had been in ask the question is she could have done it absolutely now what you want to say it was an abuse of discretion her not to do it but there was no impediment it wasn't nothing nothing illegal for her to continue i don't think that that would be the case but but you are correct it appears on the record and i don't believe so you're saying i don't know i can't tell you that it wouldn't be an abuse of just for her to grant to continue to under the circumstances second that that really need the approval of an i want thirty petition even after it's been filed is virtually indefinite but the approval of an i one thirty petition that hasn't been filed yet and is therefore also an indefinite had the right to grant or deny was the cancellation application and so we had to rule on that ok and then he she i think it's judge weiss yes i think she ruled well you don't have ten years of continuous residency you can't you wouldn't qualify for reasons given for the denial of the continuance were legally correct reasons or if they were you know she had some kind of misunderstanding of what was going on they were absolutely correct there the reason is that she cited were absolutely correct she didn't go through the entire l that she thinks she's able to apply for she needs to do that and the immigration judge is obliged to explain those things to her and give her a chance to apply for waivers to grounds of inadmissibility that would otherwise bar her from adjustment of status there is no application when the when the record opened up on the hearing open that day the immigration judge already knew that she was fully aware of her of the possibilities for her to seek adjustment of status there was no reason for him to inform her on the record of what her rights were associated it with that he merely two thousand and one so he could applied for the i thirty the day after that that's correct but it was not applied until eleven months after the hearing on favorite two thousand and three that's a hearing i think happened eleven months later and then it wasn't then it's eleven months after the hearing that's correct s question of a continuance is not one of those things if you look at your own case law with respect to what is a matter of discretion and what is a matter of an issue of law or a constitutional claim those things are distinct this this is a matter of pure discretion circuit and the tenth circuit and the seventh circuit and the sixth circuit have all bought into this concept that the statute itself authorizing the immigration judge to conduct its conduct proceedings is absolutely unfettered  it did actually judge posner found that it applied then he went on and said but this is really a some some other sort of issue and right having a little trouble understanding what judge posner was trying to say about some of the sort of issues we would not have  yes absolutely the the case law that you cited medina morality is a real winning case it's not a continuous case reopening is actually in the statute and the reasoning of bettina morales simply doesn't apply to this case because  specifically mentioned in the statute and not in discretionary terms and because as according to the court the reopening provision was passed at the exact same time as if the professor two forty two a to b to live which limited jurisdiction for discretion that was specifically given in the statute the court found that in that situation it wasn't going to recognize that a better analogy is probably going back to spencer enterprises which is a much broader concept of whether or not it's space weather or not this question is specific in the statute my contention is that her heckler versus cheney's kind of analysis once congress says immigration judge it is your job to conduct a hearing period and we're not going to give you any guidance whatsoever on how to do it that is the boundary is a due process concept reasonable says that would not pass that test so that the if if there was a you process issue you had to due process reasonable this issue here then i would not be arguing that you know l part so the process that's in place and that the agency and congress frankly expect that the legislative history here is very clear about that they expect if you are required to leave the country you leave the country when you're that she is required to leave regardless of whether she entered legally or not or moved if she had just overstayed a visa it would be the same situation she would now be required to leave and then