s citizen when his mother naturalized he was seventeen years old and he turned eighteen about six months later it does not matter under section three hundred and twenty in order this court case khalidi sessions that he seventeen years old when his father naturalized at the time he was being held in federal create trial detention about a month later he turned eighteen when he was moved to adult custody and he was later tried and convicted  through the statutory context of legislative history and was a statutory construction to find that the temporary physical separation from his father did not mean his father's custody was terminated then when and noted that the board jacob's two judges the emphasized that the result obtained here is only because the detention was trial and in a juvenile proceeding and ended by saying the whole thing this case is surprising enough and does not in which that in that case the court was looking at the law and just turning whether legal custody had been terminated and in that case the juvenile court had terminated the parents custody and control of the child it was a juvenile court order it had been terminated and it was your legal issue though i wasn't custody he transferred here in this case when he was put in the custody of new york state during incarceration your honor because no court has ever considered and certainly has not ordered that his mother has lost custody of her child simply because he was sent to prison does not mean under section three hundred and twenty that she lost physical custody of her child that  gang it sends to twenty five years in jail is seventeen under your position that person even though they're seventeen years old they're in an adult facility only be different because here are reasons st of all because we're talking about six months from between the period when his mother naturalized and when he actually became but also we're talking about the fact that he was incarcerated that were in effect at the time didn't explicitly provide for the parental involvement that is provided in the federal juvenile system but that doesn't mean that new york state didn't encourage that involvement there is the youthful offender provisions are there because they're for children and they're there so that children aren't not are found to have been not convicted and then we provided several examples in our briefing in which it makes it clear that new york state encourages substantial as citizenship he could have been released earlier and he would have been in his mother's physical custody but he wasn't because a magistrate or a parole judge in that situation deciding citizenship essentially your honor that's a different case than this case that's a judge who's deciding citizenship by ruling on who gets custody  yes it is but here we're talking about him from a judge issues a sentence according to indirectly that is deciding citizenship because here it would be a judge who's deciding on issues that aren't relevant to custody of the parent another  words whether somebody should be detained before trial whether somebody should be sentenced whether how they should be standards or whether they should be released none of those issues are relevant to whether somebody is eligible for citizenship under three hundred and twenty dollars which operates as a matter of law because congress  his detention was not like the detention and co leader which was brief and temporary and involved pretrial juvenile detention and as the court has recognized colleague was very clear in stating that it was not addressing the very situation that a conviction in new york state but it does follow from criminal adult proceedings in adult criminal court for adult criminal offenses and results in an adult sentence held in adult to three years so it wasn't as indeterminate and i think as the court was pointing out this is the time when there's also a quite different we're not in the pretrial situation where and an adjudication of guilt  to facilitate that by making sure our juveniles are detained near their families or in communities close or even in their home if they can be which they couldn't in that case and that case was a much shorter timeline where mr kool aid was arrested in july two thousand and eleven put in pretrial detention his father was naturalized in august of two thousand and eleven he turned eighteen in september two thousand and eleven all before any criminal proceeding or a determination of guilt so it was a very it's a much shorter timeframe and so until he talks about a break temporary over that citizenship decision because the statute is clear on how the sentence has to be made since the statute provides a decision or in the federal pretrial it is up to the magistrate who decides what the person before him or her whether to give those sentences but in the useful fund education it's decided for them by the legislature and the choice to engage in a criminal act was not the judge's choice and it was not the legislature the new york state legislatures choice but the conviction that is presented from one of those offenses that was the choice but it doesn't decide citizenship because the physical custody congress said it has to be physical custody when that physical custody was transferred to the department of correction and community services and the mother did not have any involvement in the daily care and control that is that took away her physical custody which then is congress's statement of what is required for citizenship remove the caring control of the parent but here in the situation where we have an adult sentence an adult facilities where the karen control the child is led by the department of corrections or not by the parent w believe that he was not in his mother's physical custody and if the court has no further questions then i will conclude and thank you  it was in pre charge detention was a month simply because he just turned eighteen a month or so after his father naturalized he was later tried and it wasn't pled guilty and was convicted of material support for terrorism and sentenced to an adult fact that section three hundred and twenty does operate as a matter of law there's no discretion there's no all the beach and the doesn't matter who has been arrested that is what congress has put into place and regardless of what horrible things people have done  is was not convicted of material support for terrorism he is a u s citizen as a matter of law thank you very much do you have any case in the history of new york state federal case where someone who