is about the united states it is in fighting to come home to his american family all his family members are united states citizens who are here in the court room his mother his two sisters inscribed there he also has two american citizens sheltering now late friday afternoon the government files a supplemental authorities stating that this appeal now is moot what she does but the government doesn't realize because they are but i was in the southern district of florida mr thomas took up an alford plea it was a plea of convenience he did not flee out of guilt for the spirit of judicial economy we moved the case along the judge wanted the docket to move along and we took the offer to say he did not plead guilty to anything now he did are you going to now this is a first impression for this court and what the immigration judge in boston did is use the matter of the zoozoo to hold that mr thomas is not a united states citizen in my the second circuit has a very well reasoned opinion it was an in depth analysis regarding the canons of statutory construction which they did that people do not have to live permanently in the united states in order to be a green card holder have permanent residency there are crew men there are students there ambassadors consular officers and their family members can also reside permanently in the united states without actually have lawful permanent residence now congress intended to have the plain meaning of the statute fourteen thirty two a five re states since the age of five his mother filed and i went thirty a petition for anyone relative as well as an i ain't seventeen and in the family unity program that i seventeen gave him are asking us now in the context of this proceeding to affectively revisit that determination absolutely and what what the hook do we have to do that and how would that hook and not mean that we could revisit this twenty times in a row right the fact that the immigration judge said stephen j used that president deported let me know what happens and i ask more specifically yes suppose we were to rule against you would take the case on the merits but decided i'm not saying that's what we're going to do those who were and then three years from now the he was apprehended and then there was a proceeding then would you be able to raise in that proceeding again the question of whether his us says that's what we did he react or so you could keep doing that every time he enters in this particular case the facts are identical to those whose reverses holter and the fact that the immigration judge yes madam noses do we went ahead and file the motion to reopen to the touch judge didn't want to hear it we then within thirty days of the appeal with the b i a it is now right for him to come to the united states still inverses ins won't allow mr thomas to have his day in court if you supported you have to wait till he limit for when you have to file a motion to reopen as i understand it this was filed after that time period had run yes monthly that you can sometimes try and deal with that is they say but equitable tolling should have applied no time limit can apply to such a claim but then second more conventional argument is but equitable tolling can apply to a time limit united states we felt that the issue with right again that he now we had third new standards new law the state law that was applied to the immigration charge and we go to the first circuit at that point he exhausted all his remedies at the time plane reading of the statute finding that is i just not quite understand the government's position in the b s a never addressed the merits of the argument post the second circuit decision correct right ok and you're saying now the reason that the b i gave for that was that it was time completely on our own but another possibility would be to give it back to the beach for them to consider it might do second circuit decision talking about timing i guess and i can understand if it was clear either way so if you thought the second circuit is clearly wrong and the session simply cannot be read in any reasonable manner other than the guy who read it the first time we a claim if used this is in it's clear that he is he should be entitled to relief the difficulty is if we thought it wasn't clear one way or the other normally would have to be a decision we look at its reasoning we see is a the object i'm in the position of the intention to be a permanent resident is because the the days never reviewed whether such a document was filed whether it counts as a document whether it would be a good enough document naturalized u s citizens why would congress want to make it all complicated for their minor children to become u s citizens why would they want to go through the whole rigamarole i can see why they want to come to a stand up and so there were regulations are there were standards regarding children that were living abroad at the time the parents were naturalized and children were living here and so including and together this is how it came about even aside from this seventeen year old three years later the seventeen year old goes to get a dog first with security guard how does he prove at that point that he's a citizen i could see i think what we're  that there's this objective test that you look at him yes or no as opposed to him just telling that story later on i stayed here i did this i did well he was never in the position to actually declare citizenship at the time because he never realize that the law applied to him so now the law applied to him that he was a citizen why not affirm it and he could not have anyone confirm it but the first circuit here because you have the opportunity for to hear the constitutional issue of things shape this is the only jurisdiction mr thomas has the law wasn't available to him when the when steven day the immigration judge said you're not a citizen and there was no law that proved that he was a citizen so he was deported then once the law changed for months later after he was deported that was his opportunity coming back and soon i think said you know what i am a citizen this is the second circuit got it right they analyze the statute the way congress was meant for it to be written and understood and they wanted to say he had to be a legal a lawful permanent resident in both clauses they would have included it but they specifically left it