opening brief i think there is authority in the circuit that says the issue of the issue is properly raised that's enough even if the arguments are fully properly developed and so therefore i think that that issue isn't going to preclude determination by this court also the other argument we make is that there is a subject matter jurisdiction issue so at any time this court can and so that you didn't need to raise that argument before the you know if there was not a jurisdictional issue would you say you had raised this argument to be i know i would say that i made the argument in the and the issue to the v a about is being a refugee status it's something that i think that the record of this have to speak on the need to look at it more closely to see exactly what i put in in that removed because any alien can be removed and i think the wrinkle in your case your client situation is that the question whether in the removal proceeding the government has to do something to prove that the initial grant of refugee status was wrong that he's still in that status in other words he came here as a refugee which implies a fact finding that he met those requirements the government has already found at some point in the past that he methods requirements and and that's the thing that i find th that and that case obviously is not before the court if a refugee after his one year in refugee status refuses refuses to file for adjustment or forgets to file for adjustment of status does that mean he continues on as a refugee forever or not and it's surprising that the third circuit doesn't really address the issue of whether a person who doesn't become a permanent resident remains a refugee  and therefore is immune from removal while someone who becomes a permanent resident so has a feast in this case for no for us he becomes a permanent resident so the real issue is whether becoming a permanent resident then strips him of his refugee status and if the refugee status was intended by congress and by international law to give people who face persecution abroad protection in the third place in this case the united states wants a place where they can be safe forever then to then be able to put them in removal proceedings takes away their protection they certainly weren't going to make them citizens when they came came here but i think that the intention of international good morning john williams on behalf of the government do you know the answer to traffic you this question from the nature of the original admission as a refugee whether it was under the law timberg amendment or under ordinary refugee procedures  i do not know that john the record shows that he came in under his that his mother had a fly it's it's my understanding that it was it was a general reference refugee act but entry as a refugee represents a decision by the government at that time that he met the definition of a refugee and high price i certainly understand the argument that notwithstanding that he's a refugee he's remova special burden to prove that he didn't originally meet the definition of refugee in other words to go behind that and here they were the agency said well we don't believe that he ever suffered back way back when and i don't understand how they can do that well first of all the when he came as a refugee he his allegations were was that he came as a refugee her or his mother  but more importantly he testified that he became a lawful permanent resident and indeed is required by law under section i had a section to all you have within one year you are outside of the united states and you're applying for refugee status you have to apply under section two zero seven zero the i that once you're present in the united states you then have to reapply u application that is a person who is outside the united states applies for refugee status but still has to meet the definition of refugee that's instantiated a person inside the united states applies for asylum and has to meet the same statutory definition of present present the all the evidence all over or they are or they are just and in this instance this petitioner adjusted to lawful permanent resident status but let me just be sure that i understand answer the first part of your answer if mr craig on official his mother had come to the united states before they had filed any papers they would have applied for the mother would have applied for a m instead of refugee status but the thing that she had to demonstrate was the exact same thing that she demonstrated from outside the united states senate right that i've i'm not sure if that's depending on where they were at the time they apply it is that right i would say that's correct but once once they've met the the requirements under  zero seven and they come into the united states they have one year within which to then adjust their status or they're placed in removal proceedings and it make a to make application within that one year and i just don't have a cases before me but i'm pretty sure that the board has decided that point and it is legislative history that the government has the government placed in its supplemental and refugee who has been admitted needs to make application within the one year to adjust status where they are placed in removal proceedings and then you move over to they can apply under to a wa least they they outlined the fact that that's what needs to take take place i understand what john harris it's saying that john that that wasn't necessarily specifically the case there but i believe that that seems to me the present a problem if you could if you could remove refugees and or of the interpretation of the smirk go decision what what was the kind of sequence of that in the international law well i will know too to the court that that's rico is back before the third circuit and it's pending actually right now and i'll just summarized by saying that  states what a refugee is and the asylum definition refers to somebody who meets the definition at that eleven zero one a forty two so therefore it is this is the same standard they have to reach most often when a person comes to immigration court change circumstances fifteen twenty years later a vietnamese refugee comes twenty years later and can't make the same claim that he did when in  seconds i just wanted to point out that in the smuggling case there was no statement from the smugly mr maher for substantially anything about his being aided assisted by mr