morning i'm planning to spend the bulk of my time this morning discussing my client's eligibility for cancellation of removal because i believe there's been some recent decisions of this court and other courts that are very favorable to my client in that regard but i just wanted to mention at the outset that i do not believe that my client was even properly found to be removable he had a fifth amendment privilege to remain silent at his hearing and that i believe that that privilege of the differences between the old form of relief for permanent residents that get into a jam that my client got into and in the old days before it before the immigration reform and before the illegal other way to what extent do we owe deference to that interpretation of the statute and how do we know how can we tell whether the agency intended to be making a binding interpretation well i don't think the difference is all when the statute is plain on his face and this case i believe it is it is pretty plain on its face the statute says that a person needs to have been admitted in any status in order to be eligible for believe and a nonimmigrant begins to accrue time but only the nonimmigrant would be admitted if if congress intended intended to limit the eligibility that much it could have just said a person admitted as a nonimmigrant but there's all kinds of other ways that people become legal emigrants your question i mean your answer to my question focus again on your interpretation of the statute but really the focus of my question the the fact of the board's different interpretation of the statute as i say your interpretation is reasonable but if their interpretation is at least permissible under the statute i don't understand why we wouldn't have to give some  own experience is that that is the agencies and so potentially had there is no published opinion but in other cases that i'm aware of and the government's interpretation has always been at least regarding family unity which is what this case is about that  published published no you are not that i'm aware of the only case correct yes your honor whether it's you know the board's policy with respect to unpublished opinions they're not to be cited for as precedent although even then what does that mean we know what that means or meant in this court that not only couldn't you cite it you couldn't rely upon it for authority write does it mean the same thing the b i well i'll tell you you know sometimes i go into immigration court with a unpublished decision and i show it to the immigration judge and nobody seemed to get upset about that let's that's not how it was done under the old rule all the time in this record with u published ninth circuit opinion but do you know one way or another and there is no problem if you don't but you know one way or another what the v i i position in this with respect to the binding effect of on published opinions i have my belief is that an unpublished opinion is not binding but are you familiar with the with the practice manual that the board issues yes i am in there it i so but anyway you know and there's and there's another i mean the government is arguing in there and they're answering brief that family unity which is the status that my client had since one thousand nine hundred one needs nothing i mean she still illegal border there of a person a family unit is determined to be admissible as an immigrant and and i think this is really telling the family unity beneficiary when they finally adjust to permanent residence do not have to pay the one thousand dollar and the family unity program merely confers certain benefits on the people who are eligible it does not change their status or give them any status in the united states in fact that provision of the to this is kind of unique a unique status you know honesty he's allowed to remain in the country is allowed to work is allowed to leave the country and to return to the is certainly something i could look into i get back to you on i'm not aware certainly of any contradictory give them legal status in the in the united states they had to continue to pursue their status application they wanted to get legal status in the united states the fact that they could leave and return or the rudy glanzer case i'm sorry i don't know here it is it's made yeah it says it's within the discretion of the trial judge to permit counsel for the witness to invoke the privilege on his behalf and when the witness in this case didn't take the stand the first response he made was i think through a translator was there transmitted yes there was a translator interpreter i don't want to get myself in trouble right right but then he did  perfectly acceptable way for an educated person who does not speak english to assert his fifth amendment rights yes and he was allowed to sort of for the first few questions for which he had started it and then wouldn't the normal reaction of a fair minded jurist the two at that point to say well that being your position with respect to any question in this proceeding is a thought would normally happens in a courtroom no i  twelve twenty nine a subsection c two capital a he has the burden of proving his admissibility so he had to come forward with evidence to show that he was admissible and even if he did started the fifth it's all the questions in this case questions are taken you over your thank you very much for your argument ok thank you you have a thing for  almost just a couple things at the time of the hearing the burden was placed on the government to prove my client had been a smuggler there's been a case that came out later called ultimate around all that sort of one thing i need to respond to what counsel said about advance parole a person is completely under attack and illegal in the united states cannot get advance parole and the government won't give a person that's illegal permission to leave the country and then return i've never seen that happen this is another thing that bolsters i believe our argument that family unity is a status updates obviously the status of the only person in the country who would have no status would be an illegal alien so i'm out of time you are thank you both for your argument the case just going to be submitted for decision