judge indicated that he agreed that mr lopez was eligible for the kwara the agency filed a motion for reconsideration a different immigration judge  the same line why i think that there are several reasons why it doesn't it doesn't match up and as i read twelve forty five thirteen see it's my understanding that the regulation does permit well i mean i see the point that the court is making sure there is a difference in the car depending on the nationality of the of the individual our basic position is that congress did not intend exclude people such as the respondent from being able to obtain relief based on the facts of a small possession of marijuana there is a whole case law within the immigration context in which  individuals with with those types of convictions are permitted to obtain relief and we would our our position is that this is precisely the type of situation where congress would intend for relief to be waivers i've been in this ability under two twelve of the act and again this this is my interpretation of the regulation certainly the court is can make its own interpretation of the other regulation but based on our interpretation of it that is the sufficient rationale to address the issues that he raised below so we do believe that that falls within a two process fundamental fairness framework but it might be an alternate basis for that's the steps that the he took in this case but i guess i guess what we're pressing you on is that all three of us is that you can view it as a hermetically sealed the current analysis because you've got the two twelve age issue right or are you saying the two twelve each issue is is nonissue well i think what the but the agency were saying was that you can't erase the fact that this guy doesn't have ten years of continu well if you look at some of those the other decisions that this case is is about the timing and how he needs in order to to qualify from the car he needs a ten and the board and then gratian judges found that according to twelve forty sixty six he needed the ten years of continuous physical presence from the data collection he couldn't get in a car so he could apply for the waiver that could have altered the tenure and made it seven well that's that's what that's why we rely on the fact of the conviction you can't a race the fact of the conviction i mean the parents are set out in regulation that ok you had you have this this whole substance conviction but we'll subject you to a heightened requirement of ten years and if this injection happens you know in two thousand pot or something like that  now i realize it's one forty five has language about you can use these waivers for a car if it's really specific and the in the car regulations out the criteria and that's what the that you know in this case they they found he wasn't they just they just started and stopped the car application so when as far as the waiver goes it found that specific requirement of ten years from the date of his conviction you know he just didn't have those ten years and so there's no opportunity even get the waiver used once once you've got the conviction you're seeing the conviction twelve forty sixty six and he's got this conviction that disqualifies him from having his removal cancelled and my understanding of the argument if he if he had the ten years you would need a waiver i mean it doesn't it doesn't address the feeling of the ford to provide some rationale of why they were pretty the waiver requested by mr lopez is and isn't available what about the government's argument once you have a conviction this within the ten year or is it that deprives them of the opportunity to establish the same years as this twenty fifteen can't get a car that's why our argument is that it's a seven year case and it starts from the time that he seven years prior to this kind of the file the current application which was in two thousand  so it's argued that that was in that sense that seven year period of time he would if he had a waiver he would qualify for the car but if the ten year period is a purple people but to vitiate the ten year period you need to were really the case comes down to the sort of decision point for us is is the question of whether the waiver  the application not the time following his conviction it seems like a real chicken and egg problem isn't it i mean you if you had the waiver i think