process and then the petitioners daughter was going to turn twenty one years old which was going to open a door to a visa that would solve the problem in terms of the petitioner being able to a motion to remove and for filing and a motion to continue the case until january twenty eighth thing for the batter to turn twenty one when you look at the birds decision they never address appropriate subsequently the daughter turned eighteen i mean excuse me twenty one years of age and the suppression was filed and approached there was another case that the circuit denied the case primarily because there was already a case active dealing with the some other issues of adjustment of status and b so approval so what we have really here is by the way the there was supposed to be a conference with ice on march the tenth regarding the gentleman's status however the day after president's day the service  the day after president's day i had a total of six clients that were attacked by ice on bogus levels either a purple removal or threatening removal so there was a major or some sort of calamity going on where ice really did interior enforcement like i've never seen before and was gentleman got swept up taken out and departed even though he was given a lot or that they were going to wait until march the tenth which would have given us time to be talked about there was a dissent that he did in a similar type of case dealing with these as and that happens in chain migration cases one time goes by so long and we're going to hear so long and he has an equity that arises and this is a close of a pep a system that should have worked the case simply should have been remanded back over the board should of settled the question on its opinion  didn't and as a result the man paid all his fees he paid his thousands of dollars he had to pay an extra thousand dollars to get a medical in custody were any and he had on a piece everything a problem arise because the responded had gotten married after the case had been approved and before the mother officially became a u s citizen after she became a sort of a second i want thirty three the mother was filed where we attempted to say twenty eleven where it may be in terms of the statute and the current immigration law ambiguous that it is or is not an aggravated felony it may possibly not be an aggravated felony under the amount of months it doesn't amendments that happened before and after and i believe in that case that was the older statute that that was passed and in one way it was a statutory it but for a kid a different types of possibly be an aggravated felony and the bird didn't didn't address that i have another client that got convicted under the prior statute that was before the amendments and before the amendments they said that night sorcha law makes it a presence is it a year just in a status your best argument and doesn't really require a reopening rather than having this court this court is limited to the record  well the question that we gave the board was never answered if they would have granted the working man and then we would have been able to adjust status before the immigration court before he was removed from the united states that your client has been removed and salvador did he mention there was a letter he had with that in or an order from this court or what was that no that was a letter from immigration customs enforcement at the at the detention cent not a lot of where he's given a letter that his case will be reviewed up to one hundred eighty days and they had listed much the eleventh so his family had scanned it they they showed it to me and my phone so that we motion to reopen with the board this is new evidence of the board has not considered number two his relief of adjustment status is highly speculative at this time especially in light of the fact that he has this criminal conviction that is categorically a crime involving al turpitude so i can't speak for the agency in the first instance because he hasn't submitted this information to the board a motion to reopen but again he has a serious serious impediment to adjustment of status in this case but again the proper recourse  and then submit this evidence so that the law or to essentially adjudicated so again any official past or present or current has no bearing on the correctness of the agency's decision in this case so in terms of asylum the immigration court also think now all right very well thank you have thanks to all counsel for their argument the case just argued is submitted