rebuttal mr campos is a forty year old married native and citizen of el salvador who entered the united states with an inspection in one thousand nine hundred one when he was about fourteen years old he's married to a u s citizen he has a lawful permanent resident mother he's also the victim of a kidnapping and has an application pending with the nicaraguan and central american adjustment act and the specific issue which we asked the court to decide deals with whether his first act which would make him removable or his last act which would make him removable starts the ten year period for physical presence in the united states we argue that it is the first act the plain meaning of the statute says following the commission of an act or assumption of a status congress did not say any act or the last act fung case yes right which the which that the i a e a has now disagreed with and we are not bound by our prior decision unless that unless it satisfy certain certain conditions when there's a well the that is that's correct and if so we would request that the case be remained did before the board to apply that case in the first instance but  i mean this is sort of an on off spec it isn't ok so i would say i would say that the immigration judge had earlier said that the statute was unambiguous in and the think that the board's decision is reasonable and there's one very important thing not right so that if you i don't remember what the timing was you know is your brief before or after castro openness before so are you asking for the opportunity to right we're talking at about twelve forty sixty six but i think one of the one eight us eleven no one uses that phrase and act as well current act was enacted by congress specifically as a relief act and the board doesn't really address that aspect of it being a relief act and if we use the same castro lopez dealt with in the car but the board doesn't talk about the million or two aspect of it and the fine case talked about the harsh consequences of deportation and  was acted in acted after congress eliminated suspension of deportation and replaced it with cancellation of removal so there's a very specific reason for not car it was force certain people from certain countries including el salvador so that's why we believe that the interpretation and cast it up as is not reasonable even under chevron deference statute which the board described this is essentially identical in substance to the regulation and that's the case under the regular in a car statute and also the heightened car statute that's at issue in this case y much well they were issues that were left open by the board that are not relevant to this case for example whether to count ten years from the act or the conviction itself it's not relevant here because at the time of the board's decision it wouldn't have mattered his april two thousand and eight act and his june two thousand and eight conviction wouldn't have made a difference in this case you doesn't become moot just because he's been here ten years since two thousand right no it does not become the board's decision was in two thousand and thirteen the board at the time properly decided the case and there's no reason to grant a petition for review of  correct board decision that is not legally erroneous and as far as matter of castro lopez is concerned this court has recognized in the funky that the relevant language is in the period from the the last the portable sense because the ten year period is a probationary period is a testing period during which time an applicant should not engage in any behavior that first we're talking about a different statute and the the fan case is important because it shows that the basically identical language this court has identified already mess and so where there is and there you ambiguity in the statute then the court must defer to the board's reasonable interpretation of that statute and the board's rule here is in fact reasonable and if one were to adopt petitioners position there would be situations where persons would be permanently ineligible for special cancellation that is if the ten year period were to begin in two thousand and three and and in two thousand and thirteen he must not only show ten years of continuous physical presence but good moral character during that period so if a person were say convicted of a drug conviction such as such as in this case or otherwise demonstrated a lack of good up he's now like any other person well once the ten years are up so petitioners argument is that the ten years begins at the very moment the very first day and then it ends and then it doesn't start again just because he commits another crime ok so the ten year period not only is required for of continuous physical presence but the also have good moral character to during that time and so if he does not have good moral character during that time then he doesn't get another ten year period around he that's it he's earned it is that is the ten years only relates to the period of can we measure his continuous physical presence which we measure from his first crime would be two thousand and three airport expired in two thousand thirteen same time the board charges him so he would have if we adopt his theory he satisfy the ten years continuous continuous presence but there's an additional requirement that during that ten period ten year period he must of good moral character and since during that period he had a subsequent conviction if you can't get satisfied in any of it if you cannot show good moral character he will be permanently barred in the case of let's say he gets another shot ten years in two thousand and eight and he stays out of trouble he shows good moral character well the fact that you've lacked a good moral core moral character in two thousand and three would not statutorily bar him from the release so the board's decision is in fact consistent  yes now could you please any of this i mean that part of it what we do is know your i did say and he went and he never briefed anything about campos lopez and i am not particularly see it going anywhere but should he have the opportunity to do that he hasn't done it well the government would not object to an opportunity to review case but it should be noted here that the petitioner in his twenty's you both might have been a little more proactive about actually what i know you  reasonable decision that in fact other circuits have rejected at least four circuits have ruled in a way that is contrary to find drugs that just give us a certain complexes that doesn't change the obligation yes not that's a the time of castro at the time of song the court did not have chevron yet that that movie decided for naturally want to know why excuse me and that's relevant because why well because in fung the court said it was ambiguous but because it didn't have you'd have to you'd have to persuade the board to change its mind and reverse its prior decision that's correct you don't really want to send it back to the board well we would also take briefing in front of you if  castro lopez the board room actually reviewed the regulation cited noted that it was identical to the statute just wanted to clarify that point also while this court has preceden thank you thank you both for your arguments and i must say that if you could have done better with updating the legal situation before you got here i could've maybe we could have done better and asked you to brief us