that says hey congress passes these laws amount of hierarchical fashion when it says this paragraph it means this paragraph a one and we're dealing with a three in this case so don for them why would why would it be odd for congress to say as it does right at the start of a one if i am reading it right that  this was they're dealing here with with people who were inadmissible at the time of admission in response time to the mission and that's what they're talking about and that's what they're trying to deal with  d everything has to be read in the light of that understanding and when you start talking about things like a conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude you're no longer talking about somebody inadmissible at the time of the mission you're dealing with somebody who has become deportable a different category of alien altogether why isn't that out our watch a cool thing for congress to do and then to read th based on the marriage fraud but what i understand it was the s q l i was trying to ask also is that a one is limited to aliens it invisible at the time of admission that's the way it's set up and th hanging paragraph picks that up by talking about it miss ability not about remove ability not about grounds to be removed because you're deplorable under another subsection so why isn't that even the language of the hanging paragraph you back up into eighty one and not and telling you don't be look at it a three way three a six whatever other subsection there is well i i do believe that if you if you look at it this way  well obviously something everyday but it is indeed but why should we not why should we not read that way why should we not understand the arc of the statute and  there's been a minute's over time that would demonstrate that even says reading it that is pretty strong why would we not think of it in terms of that hey paragraph doing the work of taking us back out to the preferred section and saying those things to well i i just i think that's all accomplished before you can get the hang of paragraph and one clue that i think is one thing that is chooses not to exercise its question under a one word chooses to charge a c i am under eight to what difference does it make the person is still removed right well i think something in our immigration system that can make a person go from time to time in the way the government chooses to exercise discretion but that's not really in front of us right now they didn't choose t exercise her discretion in the sense that they decided to charge your client with a crime involving moral turpitude based on the fraud having done that your complaint seems to be that that undermines would destroy the proper way around the question i was trying to put he is since this is discretionary waiver to start with what matter what is it as a policy or other legal matter problematic about about the attorney general in different places in what is now twelve twenty seven in you seem to want to take away from me one and take it over to a to a group which has its own way well as the panel of this court have all agreed that the proper interpretation for this statute is that twelve twenty seventy one age only applies to this paragraph mr turner yeah  a one thousand one prosecution right you'd be subject to it perhaps yes and i and i understand the argument to be well congress really couldn't have meant to make it that be enough he said a lot better and i did but that's what i'm like you to take on you would oh our position is that the conviction has out that there are consequences to that conviction that are just simply the kind of accounted for which is not covered by this waiver i mean i'm not disagreeing that  it's a distinct and it's a distinct legal ground of the portability yet the issue here is whether or not that i think judge me was you know kind of came to collate it better than i am actually at the moment that it's his argument is well the conviction is based on the ground of indivisibility based on the fraudulent marriage representations you had to make as a part of it directly resulting from such for all of us from the mission house the government suggest we read these words based on it it was very predictable it came out a bit surreal with your response to how we should read those those calls awards well counter would like you to read these words ground based on weight ground give a little bit in to your argument that if we were to adopt the petitioners you hear we would get crosswise of the categorical approach that we're supposed to apply otherwise in these cases well  i think it's i don't think so i think that what the statute is saying is that if you are removable or on that ground the attorney general simply just doesn't have discretion to grant it so it's just a  conviction because once you do that you are your story go look at questions that are yeah that are fact bound and this you shouldn't be do they should only be  graph applies we would have to look at the facts and say hey this really does amount to this a new thing the same kind of marriage fraud issue that was going on as the ground for it in disability right i mean that's your whole warren it hang paragraph says and everything else it's related to those that kind of a problem that kind of factual set up that's the only way to get to where you get that takes you past categor