valuation and you've asked us to do it using siobhan step one crack yes are you familiar with our court's decision in zang where we looked at twelve fifty five they found it to be n p us and moved to chevron step two yes so the actual marriage itself it doesn't talk about the relationship between the child and the step parent it talks about adjustment of status based on the qualifying marital relationship so that would be argued that when we also ar to get us to step two i don't think it is unclear but i think that if you find that it is that it would they would be with relationship to the marriage and what the relationship between that what the requirements for adjustment are with respect to a child and this case on i think if it's unclear it would have to be that like i said i don't think that it isn't clear i think it's written very clearly as the seventh circuit addressed in the in the act from decision on however it is it would it would likely be reffed respect to that and we would submit that on that particular the regulation that we that's in our brief you forty five point one eye is inconsistent with the overall then this case she can never have and i want thirty up proved based on her relationship to our separate because she was over eighteen years old at the time and that's argument is that not allowing her to adjust status either through her mother processing and and the board's akron decision they specifically state that k three k four pieces are speedy mechanism for spouses and minor children of us used to obtain their immigrant pieces in the united states rather than waiting over respect to k two a just one of status cases we would submit that this is similar to that particular situation it's not automatic across night because it still has to the mom still has to adjust as a board was that this was the board's interpretation so we were essentially arguing that the words and trucker taishan was wrong knowing that the board wasn't going to change its interpretation because they had a published decision on point stated that it's inconsistent with on the statutes the end of play between the multiple statutes at issue in this case and it's inconsistent with the life fact and we believe that for the reasons that we some work in our cases come to the united states including a three hundred k force coming here to adjust status that's that's the whole purpose of them coming that serves no purpose for them to come if they cannot adjust status and that's the that's a large part of the argument that discusses a qualifying marriage it's talks about adjustment as a result of the marriage of the nonimmigrant to the citizen who filed the petition going beyond that and saying this precludes adjustment and for the child is beyond the intent of the statute and clearly it's and beyond the intent of the whole piece of classification when it was enacted in the life so i believe that the regulation is invalid for the reasons i in order for the parents who is married to the spouse to adjust status they have to actually marry the parent and that's also the term marriage prod that was part of the whole scheme that was sat out to deter marriage fraud through and fund that's i think they they recognize it just saying conditional just making them go through the conditional residence process wasn't a not that they enacted they support this provision right show active in order to make sure  the marriage actually does take place so that someone like a one doesn't come to the united states and immediately marry someone else to try to get there and i know perhaps i misunderstood but i thought it was part of your argument that the the one b which defines children to exclude stepchildren who are over the age of eighteen what about minor child though when your child comes up in twelve fifty five he doesn't look like that was an intentional it's elsewhere i don't isn't there a under the k provision that my child includes and married children under the age of twenty one right up to the age of twenty one but again that's the nonimmigrant visa provision we're talking about adjustment which has a different requirement under two forty five day subject to the yes it would she would have just adjusted like normal again this this problem arises only for stepchildren who are over the age of eighteen your honor at the time of the marriage should be under eighteen she would have adjusted like normal in the normal course  i suppose it applies to children who are going eighteen and twenty one correct twenty should get out correct because again because she doesn't qualify as a child of her stepfather if she's over the age degrees the plain language indicating intent to treat children between eighteen and twenty one differently than children under eighteen because they must adjust and to learn about how they must adjust me then turn to two forty five a which then  they must adjust person to a petition and demonstrate eligibility to fail ability to do that we turn to section two or four which says that an immediate relative has to be a child or spouse and then we got a definition of a child which excludes isn't that asking us to interpret really the same language which takes its language that is very similar to the agency's own language based upon marriage as a result of the marriage this is a focus on the marriage eligibility there's nothing by individuals not by marriages either the mother or the stepfather had to file it but she doesn't have a conditional basis with her mother congress would need to scrutinize that relationship she has a condition relationship with her stepfather and that's why it took twenty five he applies to her  those visas are not necessarily immediately available and so there's a problem to twenty five that reading would make it inconsistent with a difficult under twelve fifty five day because they're not immediately available the statutes provide that  the language of it demonstrates that and understanding by the agency that the goal of congress was to have these visa holders be able to we in the united states while they adjusted what is the difference equivalent of and yet relatives how did how can you reconcile treating stances and this and those children as something other than we hear about with are not treated as other than immediate relatives and immediate relative childs does not include  remember remember here most people immigrate to consular processing abroad some very select few got lucky in congress built an exception for them the exception in two thousand the congress created however didn't fix the stepchild language but you just would not have to wait right after the come to the united states then after there was a marriage right and i presumably says it so if the plain language of the statute allows for the case of a regulation then can understand how the goal of equality and i went thirty titian and scrutiny that petition for the union spouse does that how does bringing and nineteen year old child frankly the goal of preventing nearly tried i don't know that it does i know that their purpose of that is again we're only talking about elaine's over the age of eighteen at the time of their parents marriage what i'm saying is there was an exception carved out ok's but it doesn't include petitioners over the age of eighteen because congress does favor step children and what i want to add that in this case it's mother naturalized in two thousand and six which means if she had gone back in touch base she'd be over here now just point out with respect to the mothers i want thirty there is of these immediately available there was at the time of the immigration court proceedings in the case so she didn't there's nothing in the requirements up to forty five a that she did not meet where would we know that from yan two thousand and i believe nine or ten when she was before the immigration court i can't remember the exact but i could ask you about the minor child language which aired use of one minor child means under well fifty five three and rather the presence of that united states if she were under the age of twenty one because that's what for k v said that's what congress require congress specifically we can argue that they disfavor stepchildren but they certainly didn't in this case in allowing them to com long as that that i went thirty ish and was approved so you still need the allen thirty fission for the mother but i think is that the structure of the statute is set up in the legislative history of the statute clearly doesn't perfect fit for our purposes of on the two forty five a just in the status and they created this provision that allowed the people that came in as cake truce between the age of eighteen or twenty one to still be consistent with what di allowed which was a limited cut out for admission into the united states if you were a lawful admission or conditional basis as a result of a marriage your proposal league we were obviously prefer that the court state that she's eligible for adjustment of status under either the such as a k two adjusting based on the marriage of her mother to the stepfather