how depends on her the basis for our claim is a plain reading of the statute that section two thirty five of them russian and nationality act we think the playing reading of this shows that those underlying it my understanding here is that we're reviewing and this is this unusual for the kind of cases we're getting these days in the in this area this is an actual opinion by a member of the  order terminated broke legally interrupted the continuous presence is that correct yes so that is that precisely what we're revealing yes and tell us what's wrong underlying because i this is a woman who has conceived connections to the united states she had every reason her residence was here and if you look at the equities of this or clear you you would think that this might be a case where the executive branch would exercise some discretion but they don't have to and these days they don't discretion with our that resulted in an expedited removal order however those orders are not properly before the court at this time as you noted it is in fact the board's decision that this court district court to consider this he believes in this case it's not necessary to do that and ask you what was necessary or not hire asked you do we have the authority to transfer this matter to the district court to consider it as under he asylum status position is not challenging any of those particular aspects of the expedited removal proceedings in fact he's challenging on equal protection grounds while i'm one of the rounds is equal protection and any challenges with regard to the constitutionality of the expedited removal proceedings under two hundred forty to eighty three most of them brought within the district court of the district up columbia within six years after the implementation of expedited removal statute that that challenge was brought in the district court of the district of columbia and it was upheld as to as far as the constitutionality of expedited removal in general now with regard to a specific challenge prior to their section so that means and the expedited removal regulations in the supplementary language make clear that that was to apply to aliens who were present in the united states without inspection and then more detected by the by the service so that would be that would that would not mean only that the at the port of entry i started you with a question and deprive you of the opportunity to state for the record your your  name my name is cindy ferrier and i'm representing the attorney general and i just want to have her here so again i would like to make clear however that the ex that i had a real challenges again are properly brought in the district court and are not properly before lawful permanent resident he can now he could have petitioned on her behalf in order to get her a visa petition so that she could basically become a citizen based upon his citizenship now i'm not sure that he actually got his lawful permanent residency prior to her leaving the united states so that may not have been an option for her and she didn't know she and she can apply for her put her husband can file a visa petition and again that is within d h or some discretion but it is an option that is available to her just this requires you to speculate what chance do you think she would have a and i'm sorry i really can't speculate i would imagine as you've mentioned she does have quite a long period of time here in the us and her children are here and now that her husband has the chance to stay there i mean  write in her favor better any possibility that this dilemma could be mediated under the statute as it stands now she knew the government's position is that she was removal order specifically what hasn't been brought in the district court with regards to whether she gets a full hearing as to her good moral character and all the  other aspects of her application for cancellation what steamy god was what she would have received even if she had been you know even if she had really entered the u s and had gotten back to her suggestion of mediation this seems to me to be here for posterous results i just can't imagine why the agency or the  supports the government's position here is that on three separate occasions she came to the border and lie to the immigration officers in the sense that she falsely mapper representative who she was th what is the problem here it's not her good moral character point say the immigration judge relied on that but the board into to its own decision and didn't rely on the good moral character finding instead just relied on the fact that that two orders of removal and what she was informed that she could not really intervene united states within five years without seeking permission or some other way of in training usually the united states unknown to or now you're with your son was blind and having been there for ten years all of these things just reached your profile asters yourself and i just can't imagine the position in this case is that she did attempt to reenter illegally and that is the problem and there what is the bind gore now hurting his father is here with him he thinks staying with his father he can if she was able to find a way to come back legally it is a difficult position but it wasn't again just to make clear the decision wasn't by the board decided on her good moral character it was the might i don't know i'd have to look at the facts if there if she would be if we could pursue that path we would be you ask me something i don't really have an answer to that moment that would have to be a versus reno case turns on standing and also on the fact that the individuals as named clients as well the individuals who are being represented by the name clinton did not having ties united states were not lawful permanent residents we don't think that's the case marker ok thank you kate just argued will be submitted for decision thank both council for their arguments that will proceed to the next case on the calendar which is the united states versus callahan the counselor present if they come forward please