when he entered these are you entered on it's called a c r one visa which is called a conditional resident visa it's not the same as what someone would normally enter on for permanent residence which is called the i r one visa so there's a bit of a distinction there the other which i also raised in the brief is that it's a conditional residence their status is terminated if they don't remove the conditions on their or their residence it's just like almost automatically on the other hand a permanent resident they can lose their status only by an order from an immigration judge unless they waive that that right and can't counsel let me jump in here one of the things i've been confused about in this case is that for you to prevail as i understand it you have to convince us that  conditional permanent or i'm sorry conditional resident in some way enjoys more protections than a normal l p r is not right no i'd say they they have the same rights except that a conditional resident has those rights for two years until they remove those conditions rights want to sensi assume your client was not conditional was a straight traditional l p r i don't think any debate that based on the crime he was convicted of he would be removable correct right he could not apply for the twelve age waiver right so why would congress want to have more protections for someone and your clients category than someone a conditional then a straightforward l p r that's the thing i've been trying to get it to do for you to win this case i'm trying to figure out why when congress want to have that distinction in mind well that distinction kind of already exists because you have a permanent resident that's able to use it to twelve h waiver if they just as well in the united states versus someone that if she had committed a crime similar to this removable crime she would be out but you're making the argument that you your client and i don't understand your own problem of your client would be in so why would why would core precedence was set on it if someone enters as on an as a permanent residence a report of entry or an error for any anything they cannot use this to twelve h waiver but if someone  justice status within the united states they can know and i understand that that procedurally i understand that's the difference i'm just trying to understand taking a step back and maybe maybe you're doing your best you have what you have here but could you find anything in the in their legislative history or anything that was explaining why congress would want to have the i understand the difference you're laying out why would congress intentionally have this now i'm asking a lot for you to explain what congress think with our immigration law some time so i'm not trying to have you explain that but you see what you see i'm going to like why why would they want to have this this different this different system i don't know what's going to i mean i've tried wrapping my head around it but  from what i don't think they did as much analysis into it they just looked at the statute itself but didn't i don't think they made much analysis on how a conditional resident is treated differently than an l p r just in terms like i mentioned before with a conditional resident can have their status automatically terminated versus and l p r that has more rights although i i think the more analysis you look into it you can see that there are definite the stink shuns between those two categories from the way that the particular type of these are that's issued to them when they enter the united states to how their status is terminated if they do not remove the conditions set on them you want to save some time yes please the court collette winston for attorney general there is one issue raised by the petitioners replacement opening brief and that is whether an alien who was admitted to the united states as a yes thank you to my height the court should deny the petition for review because mr elderly ellerey failed to show that the board erred in finding him ineligible for the true twelve h waiver this case poses a legal question which is reviewed by the court to novo and yes there is discretion under the chevron case discretion should be given to the agency in the interpretation of its own regular of its own statute of the statute that it has to implement through its regulations here to twelve h is clear it's plain it's unambiguous it states no waiver shall be granted under this subsection in the case of an alien who has previously been admitted to the united states mr ellery ellerey was previously admitted to the united states as an alien lawfully admitted for permanent resident and residence if since the date of such admission the ellen has been convicted of an aggravated felony the argument that the petitioner is making is that a conditional l p r is different than an l p r was different in that there are conditions that have to be met in the street ellery's case the conditions were he had to show the bone that his marriage to a us citizen in nigeria was bona fide and they have two years to meet their conditions but when he entered the united states he entered just like an l p r would enter and he could have lifted the conditions through the evidence that he would have to give a hearing that he didn't show up in a book so under the statutory scheme you have within two years you can petition to remove the conditional status right you have two years to you know you have two years to show that the condition should be removed and you affirmatively petition the government to remove the condition yes you affirmatively petition and the government then sets a hearing or asked for more evidence or does what it needs to do to ask as to whether the conditions are satisfied or not and if you don't affirmatively petition then what happens to the automatically in two years it's automatically over he loses his condition it and you automatically lose the l p r status yes and in this particular case did the petitioner ferment to flee petition to remove the while there were four applications his first wife filed an application that was automatically terminated two years later his sister filed an application she did she abandoned her application and that was terminated the third application that was filed was his second wife filed an application which was abandoned his the fourth petition it was filed was his second wife filed a second so that the government gives the alien two years to show that the conditions are met that the marriage is bonafide or whatever the conditions are and in this case he did not need it but the until twenty thirteen but the spotlight has to be on the date of admission and when he walked in the united states after having been inspected and he was admitted to the united states he was admitted as a conditional l p r he had the same rights and privileges and responsibilities as any ordinary l p r and it was only a matter of time two years pass that he either meets his conditions or he doesn't but it's the same the statute has to be read as it's written and that's the plain language speaks very loudly and that says an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residen and there is no no the stink in here between a conditional legal permanent resident and a legal permanent resident and this this issue was treated or ready by the third circuit in the case  step one you don't need to get to the second step of chevron because the language is plain because this is an ambiguous and it's very clear and their definitions set forth in the statu admission and admitted as defined lawfully admitted for permanent residence is defined in ion a one zero one eight twenty admission and admitted as defined and i in a one no one the thirteen and if you go and further which the court may not do to look at the regulations eight c f r twelve sixteen point one says conditional resident is defined as alien admitted for permanent resident so they're defined as the same they're one in the same therefore mr ellery is not entitled to a waiver in this ability because he was previously admitted to the united states as an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence where he was convicted of an aggravated felony since the date of his admission of the plain language in deference dictate that this case should be treated like as a third circuit treated the an alien admitted for lawful permanent residence or i think that was more written as a matter of convenience rather than being repetitive saying permanent resident vs conditional resident  again the argument is just that he entered as a conditional rather than a permanent resident it for that reason that's why we believe that he does qualify for