admitted as a conditional permanent residence whether those status are distinct but i can't find in the statute support for your your proposition and indeed various of the statute talk about obtaining status of lp are they a pain obtain that status that status could be crossed were terminated if it is a conditional status you can be lost or terminated just makes totally clear that if someone who is conditional l p r applies for naturalization there is no question but that they are eligible because otherwise they could be question as to whether someone who's conditional c notify the parties and shall terminate the permanent residence status of an alien spouse eleven eighty six a c three d an alien whose permanent resident status is terminate it under and then eleven eighty two eighty two eg ninety days before the second anniversary of the aliens obtaining the status of lawful admission for permanent residence doesn't that also say that upon help you are to be a subset of l p r alien is admitted as a lawful permanent resident on a conditional basis under two sixteen is an ailing screen easily been admitted to the united states as an alien lawfully meant for permanent residence therefore the knowledgeable for a waiver under section two one can explain away the three non presidential opinions of the board that seem to say to the contrary really they're not doing us any favors here oh i think the way to explain away non presidential opinions is that the court now or the board took a look at it and light of this court's decision an alum a lawyer and came up with a presidential decision looking at the language of two sixteen and said that statu going forward the government's taking a different argument at this point would you argue that the language in gallon morris is anything other than dick since the court in gallagher we made the case to the board with instructions to look at it again but the government couldn't contend that that's a strong holding and the government would agree with the panel but it's strong if not persuasive at this point in section two sixteen provides that an alien son or daughter is to find in this section the statute has attained the status of an alien lawfully made for permanent residence on a conditional basis at mirrors the language in section t h the definition of an alien son or daughter is an alien who came to the status of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence whether on a conditional basis or otherwise by virtue of being the son or daughter of an individual of the second anniversary of the late obtaining the status of lawful admission for permanent residence in the plain language in the section set forth that if certain criteria are met conditions are removed two years after naturalization and surely there is mention here and there out of weather conditions or not and then that is a specific provision for purposes of naturalization it should be doing the same thing doesn't then run contrary to the idea that it's universally understood that conditional status is the same but i think his judgment pointed out congress suddenly can do things better but just the fact that they pointed something out in the section dealing with therefore even though there's an ambiguity there it's the same basically and there's a certain level of deference should be should be owed i'll never know the board's interpretation of its own regulations may not necessarily be entitled to the highest level of  the language or the arguments set forth by the petitioner run by the government and determined that in that case that one that section two sixteen equated conditional lawful permanent resident with full fledged lawful permanent residence except to the extent but only to the extent that to sixty prescribe the additional of the asians quote also say he could perceive of no reasons why conditional permanent resident should not be are we have no authority prudence counsels caution so we said you know we can't see any reason we don't see it but you know we don't deal with this every day under venturer we send it back to the people who do see it every day and probably understand better than we do direct correct by thinking gallo are part of the grease and i would say the main reason the courts and get back was because it was a factual discrepancy in terms of exactly when the aggravate the agency did not give that fact the importance of the court felt the should that that we felt it should but we said we followed the course and then sure do not at this time rule out the interpretation the attorney general espouses and it clearly had then there's an open question and then the board would have to interpret the statute and then at that point the board could decide yes he is eligible to apply for this waiver and then we would move on to the board would move on to evaluating whether or not he  suggesting as i thought that we would defer to the regulation that says for all purposes they should be treated together i think that that helps inform that there is an ambiguity  i guess i miss and misunderstood your question to say if we do find an ambiguity then should the board look to its own regulations to help interpret the statute we don't feel that there's a need assuming the statute or the that was not a signal for you to  doesn't your reading lead to an absurd result and that is that l p r's who are not conditional will be barred if they have committed an aggravated felony but if you're conditional l p r then you can do all you