at this point where you have the impression from what i've seen in the case file that there's no final disposition of that is that correct or not there's a related or sort of parallel proceeding in the litigation with respect to protect request a sou a sponsor you opening for on behalf of mister pedrosa but the uncomfortable thing about this whole case is it just wasn't possible to do that under the that that denial is not before  appeal from an order of deportation or now we move on so we have to cycle back through the whole proceeding and you know whether any appeal was filed in that in that case if you have a fight you have an order bringing up before the immigration judge or before that b i eight the attempt was made to request it be there was a motion for us to a spontaneous review which was done by predecessor mr baker act i don't believe that the way that there's anything that would have allowed that to be presented to the immigration judge which is why as you've described it at least well my in a sense mike you're getting to my conclusion i think this case should be remained to what is now the eighth a you know in order for it to determine  whether or not we have a proper a proper denial of mr drugs this legalization applications there are some problems with that denial that i believe do not meet the in this case so that is this is a problem with the legalization denial is let me ask you this question is the denial of his legalization application the recent one not december thirty one ninety seven the recent one which you referred to is that in the record of this case no your honor and that is one of the reasons i don't have that the government said well we didn't say what what was done but it's simply not in our record and i think i don't know what part of top of that problem there was no opportunity either in immigration court or before the board of immigration appeals to raise that issues because as this court found and action by the legalisation if he would have to be i guess resist right into deportation proceedings it's not clear to me i don't think there's any law that that clearly says what the procedure is what the law clearly says is that this court has exclusive jurisdiction over a denial and we have a denial that's in this record what we don't have is the the that's that's not relevant anymore it's been superseded i'm not sure that i agree with that my understanding is that it was there was a request to reopen the case which was the night i saw that appeals offset on may twelfth two thousand and five there has been an administrative appeal and it was final in may of two thousand but what is there to stop us from entertaining  review of that particular well at this juncture our council has not raised this before the court whatsoever at this point it has been over a year since that decision was made she could her dilemma she doesn't think that she can because the only way that you can get the league the legalization decision reviewed is that there's an order of deportation which there wasn't there is an order of deportation that's what's on review before you right now there is there consider this because it's not exactly clear under urkel but i thought our jurisdiction over denials of legalization was intertwined with their was contemplated given the fact that this protected class action litigation was pending not contemplating the fact that other people that people then would be in lengthy deportation proceedings pursuing other forms of release in the progress  argue that today no i would argue that maybe a year ago or even within a few months of that decision perhaps but it's been over one year since that decision was made and petitioners council does not make any attempt whatsoever to get the issue before the court she has not provided even any basis for review she's not provided any argument as to why the a was denials was even legally incorrect in the first place there's no argument before us no prayer for relief on that application whatsoever and the government does not have not had an opportunity to even respond to her requests for review and so the government will contend that she is completely ways review of that two thousand five denials legalization application as for her argument which she didn't really address and thoroughly pushed her first if you were equitable even here for a year he needed to show seven years of continuous physical presence when because the law did change while his proceedings were pending his argument is that during his administrate of closure make a whole lot of sense he then when it appeared that we would be dismissive urges consolidation with this case so that you could feel that you could get everything before someone there's no notice there's no direct notice of appeal from that decision to this court it m come through that the deportation order and if it could have been raised by a twenty eight j letter perhaps we were remiss and not doing that but i don't think that that constitutes waiver waiving the argument and in in the sense of they are not adjudicating the waiver petitions as worst required by the judgment they are not providing copies of the underlying order of key parts which is one of the problems in this case supporting the l a use decision the government did not address the legalization issue at all in their brief in in this particular case well there's nothing before us for them to address to reopen the case until more than two years after that i believe that the the delay in this case is attributable to the government not to mr patro so now so i'm looking at the blue brief you this brief was filed on december seventeenth two thousand and four almost two years ago the denial did not occur until may twelfth over five years and you didn't file a supplemental brief or anything with respect more available to the government than it is to me i don't even have a copy of that decision that lists referred to so i don't think that that  get an update on this and was my understanding from what mr baker told me was that it was a motion to reopen that had been the night and that's the best information that i have