have to go on before the other two that actually quite a long time by virtue of their country of origin distract our as a native of pakistan his mother naturalized he became immediately eligible to adjust to legal permanent resident status that saying if that was done in the case of of the two individuals from the philippines they'd actually have their date families nor did they wish to incur a sort of hardship on individuals contrary and in order to limit this type of regulation being implemented that you terminate the visa status when the underlying immigrant visa has been denied or revoked terminated or where the application to just status cannot be adjudicated in that person's second argument is that this is really created absurd results nowhere in the history of immigration law that i'm aware of do we have these is done in the name of the family unity we're only going to terminate these be these is when the underlying immigrant visa has been the night and that's the operative word we're focusing on where's the denial so a lot of talk here about conversion and and different categories and her which everybody knew in the legislative history it takes about six years on average for these papers to get processed by the ins so were they thinking the kids were going to age in the six years that they were going to go beyond twenty one years possibly well the statute we believe is designed to benefit those who need it the most really young children who need to  it would benefit people who are congress enacted this to benefit people who are channel eleven and twelve they didn't put a specific number on it but they did say minor children and minor children and twenty one however it's when the apply for it if they're form which helped make them eligible are denied revoked or granted or some action is taken so i don't understand where th come in to court and say well we gave him the visas are covered by the act and i feel congress really didn't intend to cover you know they were covered when they apply for it so congress intended to reunite those families and to bring them here deportation they can't come back for another five years and those are all other provisions and i guess that plays into that and that seems to be particularly harsh consequences to be in this country and other people who don't have anyone here they may or may not have another process going in terms of definition that's that's you know on an individual case by case basis so  the list of preferences preferences only but they keep the priority date so that they do keep except under actually be why in the world you want to send them out of the country again what's to me the reason i don't have a specific answer to that question i know that there are state department estimate about three hundred thousand visas for individuals coming into these programs and  maybe renewed for up to what two year period of time that may or may not affect the number of the three hundred thousand you know pieces just generally don't cross the border with all these it's not just t v s as there are limitations based on the country turned twenty one question we had was was whether whether the decision was final because vi had made it or whether it's fine when the court makes it but there's no question there for people who had to have these addressed that in our brief the child that protection act does not apply here no man on a par but i say those that's an example of where you have not destroyed the meaning of child by allowing people to stay after they're twenty one it wasn't your