please the court good morning my name is quentin rhodes and my parents they have a half the petitioner slask there's three issues i'd like to address to the court the first being the issue of exhaustion of because we were on parole in canada we ought to be considered continuously present they never said in their brief there's an error on the continuous physical person to think about the theory of parole my understanding that the if you don't discuss the breach if you put it another sort of feeling you've raised it and in the notice of appeal which is fifty eight fifty nine of the transcript they do talk about the fact that they wanted to put on evidence as to why they were in canada and the fact that the immigration judge makes errors regarding their absence and can adapt and then they also talk about that again in their brief on page eighteen of the record in the notice through the singing by physical presence no and that's why i must concede that you're an a ok well maybe i could maybe i can be persuaded that in a pro se case restore station i'm not sure it's just kind of a question of what we require for exhaustion if we don't if we don't require a party to present it's pretty clear they were in the united states and furthermore what the what the immigration service does is instead of treating them as coming into the united states with that level of eligibility and putting them into exclusion they treat them as if they had been in the united states for the entire went to the canada parole in canada seeking asylum there and when they learned that they weren't eligible for errors that they claim that a lawyer maybe they came back without really being subjectively aware once again that they should not be considered to have been and then they would have been given the procedural of the procedural and substantive remedies that a person in the us who hasn't been paroled gets in other words they start you at the border so you're probably going to come in but you don't get the same rights as if you come legally now mr case it's the same argument i'm making they left the united states under parole that ins treated them as if they were still in the united states when they put them into proceedings and it seems to me that the u s needs to be discretionary relief and the first criteria is whether you've been here continuously continuously present and he said no you haven't even though he recognized that they had been paroled into canada and i and specifically told him how do you answer the argument interprete in what continues to his physical presence means we should be looking at what congress intended statutory term and we should be looking at the intent of congress in the plain meaning of the language congress used which seem to come against the idea of looking at this parole fiction of you know when someone come about parole and said continuously physically present but speculating that they what they would have wanted to do if they had i think they would want to be fair and by crawling someone even in the united states or law or someone to be paroled into another country there's a lot of that ministry of convenience for the united states and that and it seems to me that if you if the united states is going to take advantage of the convenience of having the parole fiction then it ought to then extend the benefit of that says whether a party has to present a legal issue to the two exhausted to frame it as an issue in the case as opposed to just saying the i j a made a mistake here and him because of the fact that he was the son of the factor the government would have done something during this intervening thirty years to have him you know we would also point out that if the government was really that interested in him because of the