i'm not sure i fully understand your argument in this point so let me try to see if you can help me sure you agree that the i j a addressed your client's daca i don't i want to use the word status without making that a judgment findings and conclusions and so my question is is that sufficient i would say it's not your honor i think doctor person you have the ability to argue that because i meet all these qualifications something good happens to me but one of the qualifications is not having a conviction the arguments that he did or all that he didn't give people a status he was exercising prosecutorial discretion so you're you're argument sort of cut against the validity of the naca well i think i would if it was really giving us was really constitutionality of dhaka if it really did give you status like t v s how can the president do that on his own while i think what we're asking here is to look at the process of are not under our own lawful status as you question i'm trying to figure out here what is in the final analysis relief that you're going to get for your client because were having difficulty hearing you counsel are you on a cell phone or  fire you need to keep may need to keep your your mouth close to the phone ok i'll try that thank you so for daca the leahy frame his argument immigration judge it was not that it was statute or regulation it's just an agreement between the government and the non citizen that meets certain eligibility to move during this period but let me ask you a question about that position course i'm not sure i understand it fully let's assume that mr gregorio did not have a dui conviction is it your position that he was  movable once the government decided to serve him with a notice to appear so that its intention to put him into removal proceedings that it would ending it administration because we chose it in our prosecutorial discretion to go after him if that's your argument it seems to me we need to wait to see what the supreme court does with the case in front of it if your argument is instead now we couldn't maybe we couldn't have but the dui is the important thing that's a different matter but i want to figure out what your argument is well my argument is based on what you  lose on that argument we don't buy so now tell me why do you why why procedurally because i don't think your co counsel your friend disagrees that that conviction some way or another well procedurally and i would go back to my initial point is if you look at what he said to the immigration judge during the hearings he said that this wasn't that the status or whatever he had was lawfully terminated it or and he repeated it in his opening brief to this court that this is not this was not a termination argue no before the immigration procedurally he was just saying that this was an admission and the immigration judge disagreed saying that well if you show me is that you have an employment authorization card and he cited this court's decision saying that that's not sufficient to constitute an admission and that's when he gets up to the board he starts to make this new argument that you would never supplied with i seventy seven notice of terminations and that's where the board kind of just adopted the immigration judge's decision and footnote to this order  saying that it agrees with the immigration judge so that's where there's kind of a disconnect into what the immigration judge held and what the board hell so i it sounds like you are and bac broader question this case is the question of somebody who is no longer eligible based on a conviction and that's the immigration judge find a site address that even though i mean that's a you know we've got to have limbo you don't know why the government can prosecute when the docket is not officially terminated regarding the argument about whether or not it can be  he doesn't have duck anymore even if it wasn't properly terminated he didn't have to renew he didn't apply for renewal so his doc a that is or presidents ended in two thousand and seventeen and he sustained the charge of inadmissibility he was out of dhaka status and there's no indication that he's sought to renew it or had anything else your argument doesn't need to be that we can revoke it anytime we want your argument in this case is that there's no evidence that he was in dr status at the time of the that the motion to terminate was file and i take it the other side's argument is but he was when the m t a was or so addressed their argument why why what's the relevant time assuming dr status gives you something  relevant does and this would have been kind of reflected and this goes to the narrower point if the court you know doesn't address the broader argument of whether they can do you know terminated on a case by case basis  that during that that routine records check and this is you know from the i think thirteen is that he was found to have a conviction and he was subject to this arrest warrant and they went and placed him arrested him and then sort of the n c a i would say that the nearer point there is that terminated in his case because he was no longer eligible by virtue of his conviction well i get that amazing i'm interested in a question judge smith asked earlier is this an affirmative defense or is it something that delineates the person's status at the time that the dhaka and so is it an affirmative defense or is it a lawful president in the united states it doesn't waive any prior period present or what you fall out of status it doesn't secure any lawful president after it's just the two year period where you're not go  he was lawfully present and that something was required to take him out of dokken status not just simply you noticing that there was a conviction in the record how do you respond to that i would  respond st that he didn't make that argument to the immigration judge he did make that argument and sell his status had already expired the st time he made this terminations argument was to the board and like i said in  s in the transcript of the hearing the judge specifically was trying to flesh out his argument and he said this is not a terminations argument this is an admission or so i would say that he didn't really raise that argument either it didn't really address the argument either he was talking about in the context of admission so yes i would argue that he hadn't properly preserved it because when he raised it to the immigration judge the judge didn't specifically address it and then the board adopted the immigration judge's reasoning which didn't really address the termination argument because he didn't make a determination argument the immigration judge at the end of his discussion on dhaka says that it appears to be terminated and that upon terminations he remained in the same position and charged as removable so i think the judge in addressing it was more talking about how it admissibility provisions because he went back to the same same status before dhaka so i'm trying to figure out as judge smith was it did begin and how the immigration judge treats the conviction and i'm trying to figure out whether he treated their conviction as was properly terminated now whether he was entitled to receive a terminations notice from us c i s or some other indication that allowed him to contest his terminations it was just saying a relief also even if it was initially or at some point an admission argument based based on that mission that again the i understand your mission or it is but if you make an unlawful termination argument anywhere well