application without regard to the pendency of removal proceed however that doesn't end this question it seems to me because the removal proceedings were pending and so under fourteen twenty nine the attorney general could not consider the naturalization application so what  proposing for the sake of getting your response is that while the district court did in fact have subject matter jurisdiction it had the power only to review the denial that had been made and you even challenge that denial and eat it and obviously it was correct what you want is for the court to go beyond that denial and from scratch to decide whether your client is entitled to naturalization or at least to a declaration that he's eligible another words you want the district court to make in advance determination that he is a good moral character and my proposal yes that the district court can't do that for denied it placed on the restrictions and that's the end of the game is not for this that's right what about what about more than fifty years of law naturalization law giving  removal proceed with with that court exploration we can then file a motion with the immigration court requesting terminations of every move re not necessarily section fourteen twenty nine if the court will allow me by any court or by the v i i matter of cruise states that as a precondition for an immigration judge to consider the turban the motion to termin so if we lack in the sense of being unable to render an advisory opinion we lack the i asked whatever they say can't make any difference respectfully disagree you disagree with the states that a person with a criminal record outside the statutory period must be given an opportunity to establish that he's a person of good moral the review we hope he does not represent a classic case of a go ahead if there are many naturalization applicants who have old criminal histor naturalization law in in the naturalization law congress intended to alot for reformation and rehabilitation what what what you have right  now what this court is contemplating is short circuiting any opportunities for these individuals to have any meaningful review when he didn't answer he did have an opportunity and then take it and that's an island first forget that this is the second go around for the government on the same conviction that mr carro based upon the relieve granted to him by the sentencing court the judicial recommendation against people  close and i believe also that the site court considers the very same line of argument and making a finding that although the court did have yours diction to review under fourteen twenty one you're sticking with limited because what kind of relie that they can cite is they could not order the attorney general to act or to graft actually this case seems to me to be one step and so i need actually made a made explicit statement on the fact that there  language language for him the attorney general from doing now of course we would i certainly don't want to bog down the court of her own arguments but we do believe that while the statue may tell the attorney general what to do we do suggest that which i understand that this court is you know difficult to go beyond the plain language of the statute but what kind of meaningful release again how can how can how can we deprive a district court hold that there is no jurisdiction based on our view legislative history