and i was able to also hear the government's position in the court's questions i think it's i just we're just making sure that we're on the same page since the cases obviously have some removal proceedings in october of two thousand and ten and since that time he hasn't been able to address his status because he's in these removal proceedings mr gene was already in the scene in min that's an important factor that was discussed in the prior arguments and he was also never he was he never applied for admission the the immigration judge did not find him removable under age six  a seven and that's an important distinction here in my brief i actually focused more on his sienna my status and how the how it's how a seven is it in a political ball for his removal inadmissibility under age seven if it was under age seven that would be irrelevant your honor which is why i spent a great deal of time saying it didn't apply a seven does not apply here they should have found it under  there was a publication made by the department of labor i put it in page seven of my opening brief when the superior court yes your honor questions very simple those we know they worked for me you know i'm sorry i misunderstood not a work permit your honor he did enter the scene of my under a work permit he had at two forty k but i was i was more referring to an umbrella permit that was issued to him on november twenty sixth two thousand and nine of same page eight of my opening brief and that was in a notice that there's a conditional umbrella permit to listed individuals and i know that he was number three two hundred and thirty on that list hopeless the list was i was an attachment to my opening brief and it was published in a newspaper or several newspapers in the sea and in my of wide circulation it's described in page eight the supreme court no your honor the superior court was addressing those individuals who had pending labor related cases this was during the scene in my time  and afterwards the scene of my attorney general issued a notice or published a notice on november twenty sixth two days before a federal takeover on november twenty sixth two thousand and nine listing individuals who had conditional umbrella permits and soon after that was when mr jingle was issued a notice to appear for his removal proceedings in two thousand and ten yes your honor and that was principally what i focused on when i put my brief together but i do i do think the more pressing legal analysis was done by mr mentos counsel the argument you heard earlier that the issue here is the application for admission language that is central to  up i think that it would be instructive to look at the case that mr mental had brought up i'm not i'm not really familiar  one question before you leave i've been looking at the exhibits which you mentioned regarding your bro a permit and it strikes me that that public cetera where in the record can i find that your client who claims to have umbrellas permit paid the fee provided police clearance and fulfill the other conditions attorney general's office or the actually the labor department of labor of this you know i did say that some of the umbrella permits would be revoked but that came after two thousand and nine and that thank you hundred good morning your honor just burns on behalf of the attorney general in this case there's really only one issue and that was presented to the agency at least and that was whether mr ginn was in possession of a valid entry document although pictures counsel now challenges whether or not he was an applicant for admission that claim was an exhausted to the agency and also waived in her brief to this court so it's but the agency didn't have the opportunity to determine in the first instance the earliest consider his challenge as to whether or not he was an applicant for admission however much like mit is case because he admits he was never admitted by united states immigration official the government would contend that the only other sadducee could be it is that he is an applicant for admission and the court does owe deference under skidmore to the board's decision in this case interpreting that both mr minto and mr jin are applicants for admission the first time he presented the umbrella permit he didn't present it to the board either so it's an on exhausted claim the first time that mr dinh said that he had an umbrella permit was the appendix to the brief to to this court now he's never explained why he didn't present this to the immigration judge or the board and this is the type of document that's inappropriate for judicial notice especially when it's directly contradicted by his own testimony that he was not actually issued an umbrella permit but he should have been the was not so that his claim that now he was issued one before the effective date of the see an r a is something that needs to go to the agency first to assess the credibility in origin of the document attached to his brief and also to see whether he met the conditions for a conditional umbrella permit as judge ban pointed out because he was not in possession of a valid entry document he was properly found to be removed under eleven eighty