please the court how much time do i have for this argument ten minutes ten minutes so i guess i'd like to just reserve two minutes then if i may i this case basically involves perhaps three creating an affirmative right to file basically even though there hasn't been a an application actually received by minus th or else there's nothing before here the ninth circuit was reading the transcript of the deportation hearing and saw that he said something about that he had attempted to apply for legalization and that's when they pointed prohibited counsel to look into it so that's that's how it he didn't apply under the settlements but he did apply in two other ways he he under the supreme court decision in in reno one of them that the supreme court said that when a person tendered a complete that's left of course the supreme court didn't really dot the i's and cross the t's and explain how you would do this but the supreme court very clearly said that if a person tendered a complete application and a filing fee during the application period the application had been rejected so you would have to somehow resubmit the application in wanted to for the agency to to to adjudicate it but that much is clear i mean that language in the supreme court is is very very clear and the what we did was believing that he has an independent right to seek an adjudication of his application independent of the settlement again and for the reasons we've explained in of you of any matter pretty ending to your legalisation the only way you would get that she dished out review by going to deportation hearing being found a portable then going to the board of immigration appeals again being found a portable and eventually appeals and so the settlements are really a way for people to buy parts that it's a way for people to get immediate relief and hundred fifty five day without having to go through all those two or three years of of administrative steps in order to to bring their application to the forefront so my point is just that there's no there's absolutely nothing in the settlements that would  everybody we actually submitted a very complete application and counsel for the government them submitted to the us a c i asked but they clearly did not want to want to deal with it and that's why we're court decide how to handle the matter and again after you know just to boil it down as i understand it and you're what you're saying is that there's an application constructively pending the death that's actually not there but for t have jurisdiction to review the application because the attempt was made to file a complete application filing with an authorised legalization officer that the application  folks who had neither actually filed or the front desk or such as your client did not extend as far as people who had never taken any effort that because there were other folks who said i went down there but i and i just inquired but i did not have a complete application in my hand or i went down i mean i just with the third category the constructive fine exactly and i think w congress was trying to do was to to draw a circle around who might get judicial protection and congress chose to draw that circle around sort of the quote the tru who appears to qualify under the statute for legalization he made every effort he played by the rules he made every effort to apply during the eighty seven eighty eight application bierria he was turned away based upon a helpful i could certainly also of course the actual terms of the settlement to be filed with the court but again the the bottom line for us is just that there was absolutely nothing in the terms of the settlement that's all to abrogate the rights of cla may please the court and the pain on behalf of the acting attorney general the question before the court is not a relief that's available for mr hernandez villa lobos the question rather is whether or not the court has jurisdiction judicial jurisdiction and ministry of the jurisdiction is subject to twelve fifty five a day at that is the exclusive means of jurisdiction the supreme court then went on to find that in order for twelve fifty five a f to apply there must be a determination and a determination is a formal  with the conjunction with the rest of the statute the court of appeals does not have jurisdiction because you do not have a formal determination of under the current i mean what happened to the district courts don't have jurisdiction anymore he would then have been in the process we wouldn't be correct right if through the celtic rangers there was that window of opportunity right for whatever reason the logos did not fall  but the supreme court does say that to the extent that there was an attempt to fire on the construct in that sense it wasn't somebody just saying i'm discouraged or room whatever out there which is what the c was designed to make sure it was not part of the congress in the terms of subsection c contemplates and you have agreed that someone who had attempted to actually congress recognized that there was jurisdiction for judicial review even though the ins at that time had no physical possession of an application because they rejected it and therefore there was no actual decision as to what i thought and there was no administrative record but they implicitly or explicitly recognize that there is that they are not excluding federal court jurisdiction over either an actual filing or a constructively filing was that was rejected you responded yes there was a different you kind of played it by that but it's not in this court so post december two thousand and five what should be your lobos to have done when he got counsel ok here's the situation you didn't meet the settlement deadline but we still have a right to do what well unfortunately i believe the statute does not provide him means to do anything now because he would be out of time so it's not it's don't know i'm sorry something you want me the government's position is because there's been no final determination we have no authority no interest to contribute yes your honor that's what the people in court decision provides and this court found this such and i believe the c s s seven there are so many that i'm not quite sure which number of this we have the authority to stay removal ending the processing of the separation while you do have jurisdiction over the removal order itself so in conjunction with that certainly was the would the government object to or staying or consideration in this matter while this application is processed i would have to check well i believe that the application would now be out of time your honor so it would take something beyond just the mere following on that occasion for it to be adjudicated i mean we think for what the government's position would be with respect to the state without checking with the client first we understand that i didn't get sort of to the end of my question and that is if we stayed and if there was an application even if the agency the night the application this untimely that would be a determination that we could review yes but then he would be subject to the provisions of twelve fifty five a f i it is the government's position that the current status of this case the court last year section over both the legalisation claim because there has been no determination and the supreme court was explicit and identifying the jurisdiction of the court of appeals that is a formal denial of the application of a timely up location with respect to cancellation the government also cements there's no jurisdiction because it's an this is the this is a democracy this is a free country you know this is liberty and justice for all we've got you you know certainly you're i didn't read that because we let you get which makes sense that they wouldn't want somebody who's appears to be eligible for this important benefit to be deported before the benefit is really being thought through by the government and these are not tough cases i mean if the government those issues but if there's any way to reach a result with where everything is basically a back burner until this guy's legalize ation is determined and then we can tune into the kids and the wife and so forth and so on i