may please the court i'm nancy martin i do represent the petitioner quite gentle go mr geragos is a permanent resident he became a permanent resident of the united states in two thousand and one in two thousand and twelve he was convicted of burglary in the third degree under connecticut statutes for conduct that occurred in two thousand and eight he was charged with remove ability and after two times in front of the immigration judge and two appeals to the board of immigration appeals the sole issue that was presented to this court and the sole issue that remained to be decided was whether his conviction of burglary third constituted an aggravated felony under eighteen us c sixteen b while this case was pending to my it was decided by the united states supreme court and in the petitioners opinion is dispositive of that issue as eighteen us c sixteen b has been determined to be unconstitutional that was the sole remaining basis for the charge of or movability against mr genet go we asked that the case be terminated that the government could retreat to sixteen they waive that or it's not part of the case i it is not it has not been part of the case your honor it's not been raised i would argue that it's been waived but i don't think it's a matter of law that they can prevail on that either because i think that the immigration judge held in the first that  that's not an element of the crime of burglary under the connecticut statute violence is not an element your client did one point say that you should be certain it would be you know if there's some was for terminations of proceedings upon a finding that he was not removable at the time that the my i was decided and there was a little bit of briefing before this court some letter briefs we asked again that the case be terminated subsequent to that just in an effort by my client who's been under the specter of removal for five years to try to find the manner that would result in the most expeditious resolution of the case we did ask for permission to stipulate to every mand in the belief at that time that that could be the most expeditious way for him to resolve his representing your client when you say term a nation or you are representing a cause because it is your client that is before us so you tell us that he wa terminate should know for whatever reason brecht your honor ok thank you your welcome reserved one minute for about oh yes you are out of the amicus appointed by this court for which the court is always grateful thank you the sole ground remaining for his removal is that his conviction for third degree part of their e in connecticut as an aggravated felony crime of violence under section sixteen b the supreme court has eliminated section six hundred b as a ground for removal and therefore at the petition for  should be granted an immigration proceedings terminated petitioner's counsel in the government agreed that to my controls this case the only issue in dispute is whether this case needs to be remanded to the board for further consideration the government initially asserted its letter to the court that remand is necessary to consider the impact of the my on the on its previous analysis but this is not the case where the board must be given the opportunity to consider jemiah as the government recognizes as unnecessary if it would be pointless or futile it would be futile for me on this case because the supreme court has decided that the sixteen b issue conclusively and a decision in conflict with the my it would be clearly an error now the government relies on our land of interest justifying remand in our land of the supreme court recognized that the law allows the agency to make the basic asylum decision at issue in that case there are two important parts of  very clear the supreme court said that sixteen b is no law is invalid and constitutionally infirm and therefore there is it can't be the grounds for removal in orlando  required because the ninth circuit in reviewing the request the denial of a request for asylum actually looked at the record evidence and evaluated facts to make a decision about change country circumstances that the board hadn't even considered the supreme court reverse mean time and they don't even suggest that they have a basis to do so so any argument that that's a reason for a man is totally speculative his co counsel suggested sixteen a would be appropriate that's correct that's correct the immigration judge already decided that the connecticut statute doesn't meet the definition and sixteen continue her the issue presented here is the same narrow constitutional issue presented by to maya whether the federal criminal statute that  mister removal is based on is valid constitutional law and federal and state criminal law are not areas of expertise that require a man to the board as this court has recognized in james versus me casey this is not a case like orlando where the agency had already considered the issue but the immigration judge and the board applied the same analysis that was rejected by the supreme court and to maya mr jenner to go raise this issue in his petition for review and it's right for decision now if on reman result in the board ordering terminations without more we don't think that that's necessary especially in light of the delays inherent in proceedings before the board there have been eleven decisions in the courts of appeals to consider to my and in five cases the order of the board was vacated at least with respect to the sixteen b that's what we're asking the court to do here once the removal order has been vacated there's nothing else that needs to be considered by the board and they're moving proceedings should be terminated  only were reduced not few and we have read that futility exception very broadly in favor of the government to uphold any number of orders of the when there have been errors but we fought the to be i would have to decide the same way now with we have done regularly and do it in a way that is essential to any objection to our being we've instructions to terminate i know your honor i think the court is has the authority and will be within its project to do so also you have no objection it was ok if instead we remain and without more then what you said that they may come up with i mean it's always possible as a certain case is going the other way that somebody could come up with an argument but we don't look at arguments or the it but i think what the government what we would just do what the government would ask the court to do is to read and because it just it is that the nest and most efficient way to ensure that there are no longer removal orders thank you your honor i would respectfully disagree that it is as efficient to remain and to the board even with the instructions to terminate because all of that processing does take time and would also and currently because of the partial government shutdown there are aspects of the immigration court in hartford where i practice or honor and where he was originally ordered removed that are not going forward they are only dealing with detained cases i don't know if they be i a e a has implemented a similar restriction on the work that they will do or if they may implement something if the shutdown were to continue reopen with the backlog why should that's right but in any event it's unlikely to be as efficient as an order from this court terminating proceedings and since there really is no reason nothing for the b i e to revisit in this case i would ask that you terminate thank you so  i just have one quick point to tell you the cases that your children are going to be the city's ok so the government agrees that to my controls this case to the extent that they're concerned about there being an open removal