eligible for twelve eighth relief because he had applied for lawful permanent resident status and been granted that status on a conditional basis prior to being placed in removal proceedings to twelve h was modified by congress with iraq iraq to preclude certain lawful permanent residents from receiving this form of relief or requesting this waiver or pardon based upon whether or not they had been convicted of an aggravated felony in this court ha that issue in time of gucci or if they had not resided lawfully in the united states for a period of seven years prior to the initiation of the removal proceedings we believe that that issue has not that the expectation was in controlling crime that you spend a certain amount of time without having committed people violations why is that not sort of embraced in that a real it's not embraced your honor because they didn't if they wanted to apply a time standard alone they they could have applied that across the board and they did not it only applies to lawful permanent residents so in other words somebody who resides here under a nonimmigrant visa on for example a professional the and each one b could reside here for sixty days commit a crime be placed in removal proceedings and be eligible for the relief time didn't seem to have any bearing on those types of individuals and so you've got a situation where you have similarly situated individuals who are being treated differently one example would be simple to think the question isn't the logic of town and coochie applicable here i mean i think if we held on the wise   then the more case and then taniguchi came out and this case is all focused on aggravated felons and mentioned starting with lower we the fact that congress wanted to address those aliens who had committed serious criminal offens i mentioned serious several times now you've got a situation where it is different we're not talking about necessarily serious criminal offenses you're talking about someone who can commit any crime involving moral turpitude that renders them deportable now being  eligible for this waiver the logic of tannic hoochie again finding a rational basis doesn't necessarily apply here again first of all it's focused on serious crimes  and in one of the one of the rational basis that was put forward was congress had an interest in expedited only removing criminal aliens that doesn't apply here where you've got somebody prince taken on a step by step faces this is one step here maybe more who knows but you don't have to cover everything in one fell swoop and still within the product of congress to determine that if you're going to get this status accompanying it comes the burden with the benefit which is stay out of trouble for six or seven years before your or you will be eligible for the waiver yeah i see two separate issues there the first being it was a logical first step it doesn't appear to be a logical first step to start removing the lawful permanent residents who have resided here as opposed to those who don't have a legal status or who have a legal status but it's not a permanent legal status against similarly situated individuals if you go back to this court decision in tapia kuya where there was a violation of equal protection the same rational basis could have been put forward there that congress was starting somewhere and they decided to start with those aliens who were here in the united states who are no longer going to be eligible to apply for to our work who are not going to be eligible to apply for two twelve c relief a waiver for criminal offenses where as those aliens who had left the united states and were returning were going to be eligible for that relief again that basis could be put forward that congress was beginning somewhere they're going to start with this first staff and then they were going to move on there also have been no further steps i would know which end if if what we are what we're looking to slow f for that who knows what we're going to do here in the next few weeks but additionally if you're if you're looking at punishing those who have closer ties because they somehow have a greater obligation again in this case when you're talking about the seven years and not necessarily just a blanket barring everybody who's committed an aggravated felony when you're dealing with the seven years you have again individuals who could have similar ties to this country who could be here  as lee's who could be here on an h one b visa for a period of time and have very similar ties be married to lawful permanent residence have work employment all of those things a home here who would be eligible for this relief whereas somebody just by virtue of having that green card would not be eligible for the relief leave believe again that that is there's not a rational basis to distinguish between those groups of people again that the cases that have looked at this before have looked at aggravated felons and have essentially compared them to illegal aliens as what the cases say that you've got an illegal alien and on a lawful permanent resident comparing those two and they found a rational basis we don't believe there is a rational basis when you're just dealing with the seven years again in some lawful permanent residents are going to be eligible for this relief if they've been here for the seven years others under the seven years won't be some aliens who are here legally will be eligible for this benefit actually all of the aliens who are here legally but do not have lawful permanent resident status would be eligible for this benefit regardless of the amount of time that they've been here again you could have a situation where somebody applies for a fiance visa abroad they intend to come here to marry a u s citizen their granted that fiance visa they enter the united states and in their first thirty days they commit a crime that makes them deportable then they go ahead and get married to the us citizen spouse which they're required to do within the ninety days that person could apply for lawful permanent resident status and be granted the two twelve h waiver whereas if the us citizen had traveled abroad married this individual in mexico and then gone through the normal processing of bringing them in on an immigrant visa and then that person entered in thirty days later committed the exact same crime that the fiance in the first example did that person would not be eligible for the two twelve h relief and again you get two people married to u s citizens same amount of time in the united states one eligible for the waiver one is not eligible for the waiver we believe that that violates equal protection and there is not a rational basis to distinguish between those groups of people begin unless there are questions i do reserves and time for  to to see two things first of all every lawful permanent resident started off as a non lawful permanent resident so this every elian has had this waiver available good idea to commit crimes for at least seven years but it really doesn't make too much sense a person goes and gets a green card and has all the hoops which are a considerable on the background investigation and you have to course that at the time you have to have a clean see you can help us out today with ok i think another thing that helps me anyway is to keep in mind that this waiver is this waiver riess concerns only criminal aliens thats this way it was only intended to help  you achieve go to go through all the hoops to achieve the status you now while your right to me have increased traveling it's cetera but you also lose all possibility of the of the waiver for seven years whereas if you are a lesser status or no status illegally here you may still have the option the mean of the exercise which is still have the option is not exactly the wrong message univision to be certain about whether it's not so now as an l p r they are given a second by a second chance at having that waiver if they commit crimes after they after they become a lawful residence are really just comes down to basically when was the crime committed was a committed before he became a lawful permanent resident and if so then at that first step it's available if you can then after giving up given all these rights and privileges access to our society you still commit the crimes when you have all these of course you haven't been here lawfully but i believe when the making is but for the seven years don't you think this is a pretty compelling case to apply the waiver given the background given his marriage given the kid given his work given all of these other factors given the minor nature of the offenses that this would be a very good candidate i think for the waiver but he doesn't even have an option in it because he did jump through the extra hoop well i suppose that would be something for congress to consider i mean the congress didn't save or we're going to give the waiver to people your by your logic if congress decided that u s born citizens convicted of crimes should be removed that would be healed passed rational basis scrutiny just briefly again to distinguish between china gucci and the present facts tend to good she again addressed that that aggravated style any bar which there can be a rational basis for barring aggravated felons who are lawful permanent residents from getting certain relief but again where you've got now in this fact pattern where somebody is just where they've committed a crime involving moral turpitude and where again some of those lawful permanent residents all lawful permanent residents who commit aggravated felonies are barred but some lawful permanent residents who commit crimes involving moral turpitude are going to be allowed to have this waiver other lawful permanent residents who commit a crime involving world computer are not going to be allowed this waiver and then you've got the whole range of individuals again being here on some type of a professional work or employment type visa that is not permanent resident status they as well would be eligible to get with time but it seems to me  crimes they emphasize that serious crimes and i think there's a distinction there that does make a difference that aggravated felonies are serious crimes recognized by congress and there's a rational basis for precluding lawful permanent residents from relief who have committed serious crimes but no