good morning my name is robert gibbs for petitioner here i'm just recently brought into this case by mr labrador of the district council who wasn't able to be here i'd like to reserve two minutes for  it's a mandatory program unlike almost every other form of immigration really the first stage is the statute says to twenty one the applicant shall be adjusted if he shows that he's been living here he makes an application in his work ninety days and he's likely to work and in that in that the second stage to twenty two is automatic it says the applicant shall be adjusted to permanent residence status on this  schedule and there is no provision varian for the on the automatic adjustment section the second stage to consider whether or not the person or no requirement that the person demonstrate edness ability for purposes of the two with one there's one exception and the board of immigration appeals described this as a permissive exception under two to a two it says the attorney general may terminate the first  status prior to the automatic adjustment date in the event of certain disqualifying criminal convictions for example but it's permissive this may and the board of him and i happened here he turned general did not exercise that problem well they sure did but congress wrote the statute in particular way and the government has to follow the statute in this case well i think it's pretty clear your honor that the language and the board of immigration appeals as it interpreted the statute a do not apply for that routine automatic adjustment in he made his locus they weren't applying the grounds of admissibility to his eligibility to adjust they were applying it to his injury the that that issue cannot be looked at and there is nothing protectionism provide any anything that would suggest that that was the intention of congress when drafting the statute we know that the proposition coming out of the dimness locus case in which the which was found that the determination that the automatic adjustment to legal fund raise red legal permanent resident status w statute does provide that that can happen and in fact that was the initial charge however in the charge was changed because the because it is the a and would argue that there is not such matters diction secondly with respect to the interpretation of the statute it is the government's position that it should be afforded chevron deference for the it's construction of the statute and then finally with respect to the king at the merits of the case it is probably two points on that on that issue first that looking at utilizing common sense even trying to interpret somehow no matter what was done that if it was done before the transition that you know congress intended that it just wouldn't matter that's simply as nonsensical and but no evidence to the contrary and secondly even in looking at what occur or for refers to any form of adjustment of immigration status i just want to understand is that word have a common meaning and top twenty seven does it only mean adjustment to waffle permanent residen just very quickly the government's hands were not tied in this case they could have terminated him at over a year to do that if the eternal chose to do that it could terminate in as few as counsel admits even later than that they could have put him in deportation proceedings on a different charge which they being argued here today the mon a decision that they rely on in terms of admissibility at the time just meant is a two forty five a standard adjustment case as the boards that inhumane is lopez and in these other cases the two ten permanent residence adjustment is unique in immigration law and that's true there's no other adjustment for it process that i can think of that does not have a requirement that you show appropriate is really probably not relevant in this situation in this unique statutory provision which is mandatory not discretionary and where the grounds of admissibility are specifically in the excluded