good afternoon your honour's may have to use the court my name is amy marching as in as you know i'm a student at the chapman university school of law my colleagues and i were appointed pro bono counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners mr and mrs order violates the fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution the supreme court has we really declared the parents have the fundamental right to direct the care custody and control of their children this includes the ability to choose their education the manner in which they're raised and to promote family unity additionally in the ninth circuit has recognized the parents and children have a fundamental right to enjoy the companionship and society of each other this includes the ability to maintain cultivate and more ongoing family relationships within this family unit if the ariana's are deported and the us citizen children choose to remain living in the united states the government will essentially be severing the family the parents will no longer be able to control the schooling the health care or the human development of their children as any court recognizes the right you just described on ours and several but what's what's your best argument or your best supports your argument we believe that in more of study the study of these cleveland and additionally in the government intrusion and the right to protect the unity and the sanctity of that family with out and the government cannot infringe on that without a compelling interest to that argument be used to  and that has drawn or we believe there would be more of a compelling interest in a criminal context for the government to take action however in this case the government is stepping in and asking the family basically family is still there the choice would be theirs but it's a false choice if the government is stepping in and forcing the family to make this choice if it was that's the to the family they would choose to stay here and to remain living together in the united states but the government is the one forcing them to decide do we give up the custody of our children or do we take our children away from the only home that they've ever known the family's been here since one thousand nine hundred nine and without a compelling interest it's a violation for the government to do that would be the policy implications of accepting your argument would it not encourage even more people to come here and quickly have a child and then say things x can no longer deport me no your honor the statutes for example the ten year prong in a good moral character prong and even if families are allowed to stay we believe there is a compelling interest in the government to say you can stay here if you've been here ten years you can stay here if you haven't committed any of the felonies left as it listed in the statute however those do not apply to this family and therefore there is a fundamental rights violation i would like to now pass the time on to my colleague  to discuss the vagueness argument thank you thank you for your standards for the application of extreme hardship yes they have in their own case law they have developed some standards but they've or they say they've developed standards by looking certain factors that everything only presents to show hardship however they've so arbitrarily enforced these standards that it just shows that there is no legally think standards whatsoever and that it's this particular plane was not presented to the b cat statue was rendered unconstitutionally vague because the language and natural contact conduct contrary to the course of nature left the prosecutor judge and trier of fact free to exercise their own common sense and good judgment with no guidance whatsoever  the language exceptional and extremely unusual hardship invites i j n the pih across their own values on each case in order to determine the outcome therefore the hardship provision is unconstitutionally vague on its face second the hardship provision has been in consistently applied by the rendering the statute unconstitutionally vague as applied to the area on a family i read the other day about the radio talk show host mean rush limbaugh was allowed to play a thirty thousand dollar fine very well may it please the court joan smiley from the department of justice here on behalf of the attorney general the removal order here in this case is grounded on the immigration judge as discretionary determination the petitioners have some possible validity and characterizing a claim some play as constitutional or a due process violation doesn't change the legal character of that challenge here  under the influence that's in the record unless the court has any further questions the government when i ask about the board's decision being affirmed i see no other questions thank you for your the government brings that martinez rosen's down in that case this court said that a claim would be heard if it was tolerable colorable meaning that it has some possible validity in this case we have to colorable constitutional claims which far exceed this minimal asking the court to make a strict scrutiny analysis and to try and to find that there is a compelling interest here that there is not a compelling interest here for the government to the court this family and we're asking this court to make a constitutional an which was not done in the lower courts thank you thank you for your of my counsel think both sides of the argument that case just argue will be submitted for decision