case number sixteen twenty four forty two versus jefferson b sessions the third at all arguments not to exceed fifteen minutes per side mr i r q may proceed for the  i'm not shall there isn't really much to add to our appellant's brief that we've already submitted in a nutshell the district court we feel heard and indicating that this issue now is moot by a simple letter from the government indicating that mr mugg dies off the and our response i'm sorry and i and i were a response to the government's motion to dismiss we clearly indicated that actually in our complaint we listed that it's not just on section a subsection b or any other list that prevents clinton from mass size his constitutional guarantees rights to travel but we did ask that we feel that the case is still alive and and there's a real l controversy we feel that the discourse should up assad make a decision that was made in the abraham case where the court in the northern district of california had the plaintiffs to each and every day if we were to adopt the judge's decision each and every day that the government put someone on the list they would have to follow a new complaint and see which list they're on today and tomorrow that could change and further on further on and leslie we're not even quite sure we feel the physician doctrine applies here because the plaintiffs the same week that we were about to follow our response he was told that he could not board the flight and yet they had your brain you make a statement that he was informed that he was apparently on that list and there airlines computer system that prevents there's ability to board an airplane and route to the united states is it possible that it's not the government but just some airline list implemented in the computer system of the t s a gives it to the airline industry as to who are on this list and that's how the individual that's behind a con is notified it's on the system they don't say why he's on the list but his b well we do have the proper party because the the proper party is the f b i they are the when they are the individuals that administer that and they are the only ones that could remove or add an individual from this part of list so they are the ones that put that into the system and if this is the national terrorist screening center that is which we named by the way the director of the director of the terrorist screening center are the ones that administer that list and the f b i is the one that input that information so they could definitely they could definitely remove them from all the list or the same people to put it on the same people to take it o later allowed him to fly by the fourth ask him now additional questions and more questions when he arrived for about three hours i believe it was again which was we we  joe's thank you thank you elzevir the government thank you your honor this is joshua walton from the united states department of justice presenting the apple e the claim that actually presented in plaintiffs complaint it is challenge to his prior no list status and the alleged denial of boarding that claim is moot because he's not on the no fly list and will not be placed on the list based on the currently available information and therefore he has no cognize of a legal interested stake here there's no basis for injunctive relief removing him from a list he's not on and there's no basis for declaratory release about the him on some other way to be removed i'm all a lot like everybody else well if he has other injuries they're not injuries that are related to what he said in his complaint and although he mentioned other lists they were all with when he comes well not first of all not for three or four hours your honor the allegations in his affidavit are for thirty and forty minutes that he was delayed boarding and although you know our first argument is those are part of this this case or this complaint to come to the case never started or preceded as something about delays in boarding it was about denial of boarding and that's the way this case is proceed and this the district court here said you know you had a chance to amend your complaint if you wanted to you never saw me to do so and while you're free to file a new claim and we're not arguing he can file a new case the court said at this late stage i'm not going to allow amendments to change the nature of this complaint when all you did was attaches in response in your reply in response to a motion to dismiss that's not a proper way to proceed  aside from the fact that the injuries he alleges now have nothing to do with the average original injuries alleged in the complaint as was also pointed out you know all the lists that you are talking about now are administered by other defendants were not named in the complaint and one of the problems the first time around in this appeal was as just court pointed out he never named t department of homeland security to defend and in the new after david almost none of the claims have any mention of which possible government agency was responsible and the only one even mentioned in the  is the department of homeland security which is not a defendant in this case and the plaintiffs never sought to add homeland security as a defendant in addition since if clay case  started as about an injury of denial of boarding none of those other lists are used by t s a to deny anyone boarding a plane for all of those reasons we think that none of these new allegations are properly part of this case that's what the district court said that it was improper to try to add them as in an amended complaint which plaintive didn't even seek to do but he's certainly free to file a new action and that's what the district court said and we're not contending that now but none of that changes the fact that the complaint he filed and the injuries he alleged are moot because he sought to be removed from the no fly list and complained about the denial of order but he's not denied boarding he conceded he's not denied boarding and those claims are now moot i would i would add just consolidated beydoun in baazi case has held that those kinds of delays do not implicate any constitutional right or any protected liberty interest under the due process clause so even if you reach the merits they would be but we think they're not properly part of the case in any event department of governmental level which screening lists to add we don't know and then the judge is not allowed us to meant to conduct discovery to know what's listed there on so we're damn if you do we're damned if we don't so again we  discriminating against your many different federal agents and we don't do the heads of the agency which is two different officers whenever they can possibly discriminate against a certain individual that just doesn't make any logical sense for us to go on a fishing expedition as to which maybe could futile they have no authority this issue is already been addressed in the prior holding before your honor's it is the it is the it is it is these defendants that we've brought that has the power that monitor the system to put the names into the system the can judges made a mistake and ruling that we don't have jurisdiction to argue and because of this hold in the months that they did ultimately find that it's not a fundamental due process however i it will be filing along with probably others organizations a motion and bank for consideration and bent on this issue because we do feel why is it that an individual has to wait three four hours an arab american or muslim american while others could just go freely it's as if we are going to be if we go down  individual is continuous the question for long periods of time is embarrassed he has to go through all this process in order just to board when and put into what we see already they tell him you're not you can even you can't even board so there's  the case will be submitted to the court dismissed the council from the conference thank you