and when you're in it when you are in an immigration proceeding you have the judge has has an obligation to let you know what you have what remedies you may offer cancellation of removal adjustment of status any other remedy that you may have to g e to get a green card and in this case the judge was well aware of that and there was a and i want thirty relatives petition which would give him immigration status the problem with the petition was that the petitioner died during this time and so the relativity issue that had of that heavy current priority date which would allow him to adjust status as a derivative through his wife that petitioner died and so  immigration law that petition would be revoked at a magically i'm last the attorney general which in this case of the immigration service unless they would reinstate it and so as you can see in my in my brief i've got pages all the way from see images well majority of the beginning of the brief five pages strake site quotes during the immigration court proceeding of petitions for his daughter and when the daughter is married because the from that the father is a u s citizen when the daughter is married that means that the spouse and the minor children are derivatives they can come to if they're following been robbing banks or trafficking in drugs or something else that would make the husband inadmissible that would on the season admissible because of a prior felony or something like that these hands are tied he has no discretion he must automatically approve  time i can what were some of the quotes but i don't want to waste the court's time on it but the initial brief starting on page two i believe cites for about four pages all the information showing that the that the case even from the district council they were asking at that time the and the immigration and naturalization service or the us yes now to reinstate this but you know to do at least decide on that one way or the other and the judge wanted to know at any rate after the continuances the service the immigration service would be happy to gerrymander it once you get this decision made from was a decision was never made until the year like two thousand and four five years later when i was already at the four taishan order and my client was detained couldn't remain detained and so the just of it here is that since there is an obligation for the immigration court to wait and see on something like that they have to especially when it's been asked for them waiting five years for a decision is really it's really not in good faith from the immigration service to do that in any time so voluntary departure motions to reopen should have been told months after that so it was when we pushed them and when we were before the district court then the immigration service decided to finally after we got that the reinstated i want thirty petition then we asked to reopen the case with the board and because of the time factors we have to give a joint motion between the with the immigration service and they decided not to join in in in in any motion and that effectively time bars mr eighteenth and now he's now he's in mexico he's he's got a ten year bar in order to have to adjust the status so he will not be able to be with his family ten years because he was deported because of this when this thing could have been taken care of right right at the very beginning and to get a decision from the service so i think five years of waiting for a decision when it was considering the record time and again the petitioner lou was asked where is your request to reinstate this relative position never was produce no registry is registry is the creation of a record of lawful permanent residence when the actual green card or other evidence is missing and i'm curious like hunting for my  admissible but let's assume that he were still eligible to adjust status which he is not he then that the only mechanism by which he could convert that adjustment of status into lawful permanent resident status would be for the immigration service ice to jointly move the b o h to reopen the proceedings in this case there is a written recent decision by the order in this case is found of supplemental excerpt of record case sixteen the decision of the b o j dated june to june of two thousand and three asking that situation if you if you use any other petition you will still be transferred at two forty five by the him in this case doesn't have to transfer anything he's to forty five eligible so that the point that he came in illegally will not stop him whatsoever unless the petition was after april thirtieth two thousand and one then it would stop and as far as speed the two forty nine this registry of today that you were here before nine hundred seventy two and that's all that was addressed in the immigration court proceedings service chooses to grant the humanitarian waiver as to it and to adjust or that i'm satisfied that he's eligible to adjust with her and at that point if i don't have anything to the contrary i would be inclined to terminate it to conclude the matter i'm not trying to  of this guy and also a district council he and i receive the same things and that there was no the only reason the charging document the notice to appear or the order to show cause only voluntary departure or something like that and on and anything else the immigration service would have would have brought that up and they have it and it was already in their records so he is eligible if he were here it's a voluntary departure s thank you