special deportation but his teachers were continued to do after the new immigration law into effect and looking at the class definition there are five acquirements there are only two issue in this case number three number five in this case the petitioners were scheduled for their individual hearing on the merits between february third ninety seven and april first ninety seven that was the scheduling hearing occurre it i think paragraph one number want to start and so as the first part is is the scheduling part and i will acknowledge the word scheduling can be read in a couple of different ways but it's a schedule a merits hearing and then later it says and the hearing which i think ordinarily would refer to the merits hearing since that's the only other hearing from referred to in the paragraph was continued intel after april first disregard for a moment the after april first because in fact if  matter or taste but the hearing seems to refer thing is the word hearing is used earlier in the same sentence seems to refer to the merits hearing suggesting you had one date and that date was changed an definition of the class which is also pertinent tells us what this is supposed to be about persons who have had or would have had suspension of deportation hearings conducted before april one within the jurisdiction april one but for that latter berzerk as a result the better they didn't have a hearing that they would have had otherwise well i guess that then the question is why do you know why did the judge continue the merits hearing two to april first are you heard the dialogue i had before the two cases next to each other there's a big disparity in terms of what the time gap is between the date of scheduling and the date of the actual merits hearing through the other case it was like  eight months in this case it's four weeks just like that which you know we see a fair number of these cases that doesn't seem long to me it doesn't go under and i think that's but i think that and then they post i read if you read the agreement that way then you might as well say anybody who's dates were scheduled between february thirteenth and april one because after that you're saying you know they  squeezed a hearing in there if they'd really wanted to and you're using continued to refer to really the same case not the moving around of any hearing so if that had been the intent of the agreement why wouldn't it simply say anybody who had a scheduling hearing between february thirteen and april won and who subsequently had a hearing on a cancellation application you're in here you're covered and then say that it does that it certainly could do that and perhaps for the proceeding case that would that would be the better reading  few suggest that section three or ninety five of ira might indeed have an impermissible retroactive effect i supplied to these petitioners because they were eligible for  got i think that there may be a dispute resolution mechanism in the district court i don't know that it's the exclusive one but that is certainly a possibility but i think under the just like it just like a court can transfer heavey a sometimes from district court to circuit court and that might that might be a way to resolve it to determine of the parties but it seems to me that under th under the terms of the agreement and i understand the judge left and point about the he seems to feel that the merits hearing has to have been continued but but that's no urged the court to accept that the that the case was scheduled for the individual hearing and that that that hearing in the case was scheduled for the merits hearing between february thirteenth in april one are very very clear and their position is very solid are very very hard piers to be i don't know that but at the same time this might be because it's only one case maybe it would be one that i mean what harm what harm i interpretation then we should go with the dispute resolution which requires negotiation with york and then notification of the district court but since the second prong of that is going to fail ultimately i don't think necessarily mediation is the right answer i also want to make the quick point verby yes sir mr murphy if i may ask a question on this dispute resolution putting aside whether it's what we ought to do i could we somehow ship before we address the i have seen a lot of powers exercised by this court but i'm not i can't think of a statutory jurisdictional mechanism that would allow this court to actually transfer this case directly to the district court i mean i think the best this court could do was maybe hold the case in advance and direct the parties to use the dispute resolution process maybe that's what you meant or we could stay our proceeding and give the parties a chance to i i don't see that as being a likely interpretation but i understand the argument so i just do your own so if if the district court's in a better position because she helped craft this thing and i suspect that's probably what happened then it's a legitimate suggestion and it is one way to pursue another point it's been made about the immigration judges knowing that the law was going to change and that they were scheduling these things on purpose of put these aliens behind the eight ball the respect to the change  it very quickly at those words sometime when you're back in chambers because it says no it has to appear issued on or or after the date of on or before or after the date of the neck in a rear if there were no notice to appear issued before and  resulted in quite a bit of confusion that led to this batch of actually being amended and then decisions coming out later that actually said wait a minute just applies retroactively across the board but as it stood around the time of the crappy memo it's not so we need to take judges new book the law was going to be on april first because the wording about that actually did prove to be very very confusing and there were some problems with it so i think i would be a little leery of jump inclusion that immigration judge is new with the law going to be in place people behind you know some people rely on it and that was ultimately why the barahona class was i think created because even though all of that was eventually corrected there was still a group of people that were really caught in an odd situation not period before the law but were denied their marriage hearing their marriage hearing was pushed back because the whole the of the cracking them up and i think those are the people who need to be protected not the people who are on the fringe of that but how many of these cases we have coming up these are the first two that i've handled  several years but in my office right a large i don't you know we don't really have a check on everybody i don't know if there's a few more out there i don't remember when i'm like i said it's a very narrow group of people i was also wondering if with these two  know we keep an inventory of all these cases i don't from our documents our courts office work that there are a lot of other appeals in our system in the light circuit that have the same issue but i'm not sure we could tell how many motions to reopen on