any equity that he obtained he obtained in the country because he was here illegally yes and i don't think we can review that part of it so does it matter that he may have made illegal or about adjustment of status well yes it does matter and also i  rather than the equities is it possible that your client was actually entitled to adjustment of status as a matter of law and the reason i ask this is because i'm right that  i guess my question is is the b i handed entitled to consider the extraordinary and timeliness here twenty five twenty four years and the labor application that's been pending for twenty seven years and saying you know general i think that this case petitioner conflates the two separate analyses that that happen in a in a motion to reopen that is twenty three or twenty four years  timely he conflates the change country conditions hurdle that he has to has to meet with his eligibility as prime ephesian eligibility for relief from removal so focus on the second let's assume that the i a i was hoping to focus on for i know you are hoping to focus on first because your stronger argument so let's assume that he hasn't he hasn't shown should change country conditions and thirty which is to say my daughters file the application it's been approved and the fact that it i entered a long time ago shouldn't matter because somebody wants filed of labor application on my behalf the i j a says well you're really not by my face you know what you will because the previous labor application wasn't approved is is that a correct statement of the law with respect to the labor certification you know with ball had to be approved excuse me however you think it has to be approved for him to be eligible for adjustment status here is as your colleague argues in that you may be right on this you're eligible for adjustment of status because it was filed and and because somebody has now filed and i to thirty on your behalf you may not get adjustment of status but you're eligible and the i j a says no you're not even eligible now that's for the reasons i said before i'm not sure that matters to his analysis but isn't he just wrong about that i mean i don't think that he's wrong you know again i think that this is subsumed under his under under the issue of what's the conditions and mr batiste says well maybe you're right but i don't you know i've got this application for adjustment of status pending or my daughter has one on my behalf and i'm not watchable and so you don't you know please reopen sold i'm not sent away and the i j a says first now you're not our jubal if he's wrong about that is that legal error that requires us to send it back i don't think whether it's legal or i don't respond to that i don't think that that's a legal error to say that i am exercising my discretion in finding that in weighing the evidence that for example the i won thirty and behalf without being in a lawful on the awful status you know i think that the problem the problem here is that with motions to reopen and the statutory language that was put in place to clamp down on them if we accept petitioners argument it contravenes the spirit really and the language of  did it seems to me that the only way you could possibly be grandfathered end is if you were in fact here illegally so at least that part of the law is and people who are here illegally  and the law takes account of people who are in that situation so i would i guess i have to wonder a little bit more than not the claim by the to the judge that the equities were acquired while he was here illegally so it does miss the point because he has to be here illegally in order to be grandfather so if we take this to the logical conclusion which is where i was trying to go if you' voluntary departure which is a mechanism by which he he avoids the most onerous consequences of a what would have that then been a deportation order but the gen doesn't seem to just seem to say i'm not going to pay any attention equities because there are an equal number of in equities the judge saying to say i'm not going to take account of the of the equities because he was here illegally and i would say that that that that is within his purview in making a discretionary determination that those don't warrant so a sponsor reopening if i just finished the my train of thought perhaps you already know where i'm going he comes back in one nine hundred ninety four and he has a child who becomes who's who's an american citizen and then by the fact of his twenty four year on lawful presence that citizen becomes reaches the age of majority and files that the i one thirty for him and now he's asking to erase all of the all of the illegal presence let me ask you a question about the i went thirty i'm correct in thinking whether or not the i want thirty will be approved or not approved is not being is not involved in this case is it will have legal status in the country if that if if the if the court accepts petitioners argument about the on timeliness no no i'm not i'm putting aside whether he took a moved or not right right he can be removed and still have an approval of that application is not in front of us today correct the only issue is that the i j at least initially discounted whether or not the pendency of that application provides an equity to mr  allow a situation where the her hurdle for such a long lengthy decades on timeliness is much lower if if he if reopening is granted then once once it's reopened then he can submit the i one thirty if it's a proved at that point and that sort of flies in the face of here now if that's why as to the question he can submit the i one thirty whether or not there is reopening or not correct he can sure sure and i think you already has submitted it right so this has nothing to this case has nothing to do with whether or not the i went thirty will be approved or not approved this case only has to do whether or not he can reopen his order of removal correct ok i agree with you there are the questions of adjustment status before this court i would say they're not before the court and i regret that i didn't make a point of  petitioners failure to exhaust the argument with the board i don't have the specific site before me but there's not a full some argument presented to the board there's a line that says he's he's presumptively eligible for adjustment based on the i i asked are your your colleague about that the board doesn't mention this issue at all or is it because they ignored it or because it wasn't raised i think it's because it wasn't racist i could that's when we have the right i don't want to waste the time looking for it but i bet we can the second or third page of the brief to the board there is one sentence that says he's eligible based on an approvable i won thirty and that's the extent of the argument for that particular issue a quick question for you sit down  could his immigration history be a factor in the decision u s c i s to grant or deny the i want her i don't believe so ok thank you you thank y is consistent with the president's promise of an immigration system with a lot of fat and then he sa