castro's child and this incident occurred in december of one thousand nine hundred by and at the time of the original hearing before the immigration court good moral character grounds since and so and this and when the board came down with its decision in two thousand and four again the time had not passed so we are simply asking that the case is good moral character was never raised before the board the issue of good moral character was raised before the board  there is a section in the briefs titled the respondent is a person of good moral character so he did raise it and then the board itself board did not know nobody had the benefit of depending on what the issue itself of good moral character was certainly before the board now whether the whole issue of the framework that moran created of a possibility of a two twelve you eleven waiver in a cancellation context was not before so therefore since that legal framework didn't exist how could the person have even used it's quite different from the situation if something already existed and it was never raised it gets to be five years for voluntary departure good moral character is five years so more than five years had passed but not the ten for cancellation  i there was an issue brought up there was an issue brought up in the previous panel by me refer to that about the whole issue of the definition what one zero one one zero one f three of the immigration act which references and sets up the whole framework of what is good moral character and then it and then it refers to particular statutes for example this one here to twelve  as part of the definition but the thing is is that when you when you look at the two twelve basics the the it's all these statements are about waivers what  waiver does it says that the that clause one which is the ground been in this ability the death which will call definition for purposes of good moral character does not apply it says waiver authorizes here is that it's waving the application of cause one instance where in a definitional context then it wanes the application of cause one for purposes of definition under of good moral character under three so   which says specifically that that's the stop time provision applies only to the president so now was never an issue here but it doesn't apply to qualifying relative in good moral character so if the please the court eric marsh dollar for the attorney general just like to point off at the course on a case where that case was issued in two thousand which was before the be a case and also as opposing counsel pointed out the voluntary departure issue doesn't really matter because the good moral character of the relevant good moral character period in the voluntary departure context is five years in this case the alien smuggling occurred more than five years prior to the board's decision cancelation it's ten years which is why the relative relative relevant period plays here a to forty five adjustment as an alien relative there's no need to establish good moral character one needs only established admissibility which is why the waiver helps an individual who's seeking for adjustment of status as an alien relative distinguishing adjustment of status under two forty eight b and adjustment of status under two forty five or two forty five it didn't adjust those issues the distinctions between adjustment a status of an alien relative versus adjustment of status under cancellation say the statute applies to people who are married at the time don't you i mean isn't that the necessary logical step which is the whole thing i'm not sure it i the waiver said it only applied to children of the application and we didn't include wife at all one could look at the statute in automatically know that there's no reason to make any rules because it doesn't apply to children so we don't need to see if the waiver what wh exactly the what is eligible for the waiver this case isn't really that much different the statutes that it applies to a wife not a fiance or a future spouse so just by looking at the plain language of the statute you would there's a policeman or step would be like justice berger that a statement by the court in a footnote was is dicta because it was not addressed by either party during briefing was what was what you just are said and the supreme court later agreed that that was dicta because it was not addressed  any ruling on the court by that issue should be directed because as i said earlier the seven circus language it has not been refined by the fires of adversary presentation so even if the court were not to find the supreme court's rules binding up on it it still not raised before the board so they've not been exhausted so there's no jurisdiction and with that to issue before the board was one in which there was a finding but your client just said he didn't smuggle any he didn't challenge the good moral character as a as a status  then regardless of whether or not the board thought much of the of the of the petitioners argument on appeal the fact of matters is that the board did consider it and said you know he hasn't persuaded the judge was wrong so