to invoke boy exemption three to withhold records regarding prudential revocation of mr sparrow visitor's visa this is an issue of st impression in the courts of appeals the luge already the district court including both of the other inconsistent with a proper understanding of the legislative history and overall statutory scheme and has the potential to interfere with the administrative move or profit center this is an issue of statutory construction we begin with the plain language of the personal insert interviewed by a consular officer abroad under the supreme court's doctrine of consular non reviewable of these decisions are not subject to judicial review in this context twelve o two have was designed to the alien generally is in the us and it does not involve any visa application or consular deliberation and until two thousand and four the courts would review these decisions under the a p a there are those procedural substantive and constitutional students between visa applications on the one hand and prudential revocation decisions on the other that would justify the plain language of the statute which does not include visa revocations under the documents indicated up until two thousand before the court had exercised jurisdiction over decision in the state department decisions revoking visas in the united revocation because it would have interfered with the removal proceedings the district court and the government interpret twelve o two to be an absolute bar for the state department to release any documents yet under the at least understanding why this isn't at least ambiguous it pertaining to is a very broad as you know the prayer rug phrasing just because there are distinct phases doesn't mean that the revocation doesn't pertain to the documents from the store pertaining to the purchase and there was a refund of that purchase a week later would be your position that a refund doesn't pertain to the purchase and under that scenario here i think that presents a much different situation that without minding the immigration laws and of course were construing the plain language of the statute you know for a context where this court has consistently indicated that it should be construed naturally and in favor of  specific point were never in the reason that i went through the distinction between as a visa application to a consulate and a visa revocation by the state department is that they're two completely different prophecies so that it would be as if the individual going into the store made a purchase but then went across state lines into a completely different jurisdiction here the congress and the courts have treated  distinction there i'm sorry around the distinction is who makes the decision and in these applications made by the consular officer where the courts have been clear and congress has been clear and twelve o two ask confirm that the consular decision making process is inviolate on the other hand where you have a prevention revegetation under one thousand two hundred and one are the courts have always entertained or up until the two thousand and four act had always entertained judicial review you didn't have the type of confidentiality concerns and because the foreign nationals were in the united states there were due process concerns over whether or not you could simply shut our inquiry into a government decision so we hear those as completely just think prophecies and that's the way the statute  the records of the department of state and the diplomatic and consular offices of the u s it seems encompassed by that whether or not there are separate process phases or nah well the honor under our construction of the statute which we believe this confirm the legislative history in the point language of the statute when the state department makes a decision to prudentially revoke a visa it doesn't benefit from the confidentiality provisions of twelve o two s now there may be other grounds on which and needed in the immigration laws it does make provision for protective order security issues and law enforcement issues and things like that but what we're speaking of the act here is simply the purview of twelve o two and whether it logically could be extended and what we're saying is it doesn't make sense to think consistent with a plain language it ignores the legislative history and remember we're construing it not just in a poirot context but also in connection with the overall again doesn't that suggest that when they used the term issue of abuses that could include the revocation process as well they put it in the same provision the same overall print twelve or one they put it in twelve or one but they didn't put it in twelve o decision frankly i think it's a pretty slim reka go to the title of the statute as opposed to the way in which the statutory scheme is organized and i mean if you think about this logically what what the government's position evidence so now what they have to do is they have to petition to a federal district court for a court order allowing the government to offer be evidence now there may be other reasons but the entire purpose of that intelligence or what's wrong with that  that that's the whole point of the interest of justice exceptions when there is a lawsuit in the court needs those documents to review something that's what the interest of justice exception is for right well because if you couldn't get those documents if there was the ability to challenge the revocation of the intelligence reform and terrorism prevention act was to increase the flexibility and facility of the government to engage in removal and what this interpretation is  interpretation does is it stops that process in the tracks and we do not think that that's a logical result consistent with the congress's decision and the intelligence reform and terrorism prevention act promise that because the dates of directors predate in various applications that they can't be application related but as judged all the noted as explained by the agent declaring them as a matter of common sense the gates of the go to the congress draw the kind of distinction and trying to draw us year fundamentally there is no reason why congress would steal from disclosure as a categor noted that in the application process you were view potentially the revocation documents and that become part of the application process so in other words the two thousand and eight revocation would have been reviewed in connection with the later visa applications but i think there was no cite in your brief to that from the record and i look back at the decorations in the one index i didn't see any reference to the fact that the connection with the later applications that the two thousand and eight where the cation doctored the st three pages of documents that are undated i don't know how we conclude that they were reviewed in connection with those later applications from the record can you address that certainly are i believe that the declaration reviewed as part of our subsequent applications in any event even if these were purely revocation documents the structure of the statute makes clear that they are  you know even engaging with the merits of what that acted which was primarily about as the title suggests d reforming intelligence and terrorism prevention you know that act made some changes to revocation procedures and application requirements but you know the mere fact of doing that says nothing about congress initial intent back when it passed the i name categorizing these things in the way that they did  very much your honor in the st place the sotto decision is easily distinguishable it was based on a consular officers decision there was no prudential revocation with respect to this notion of documents in a database you know judge daniels addresses and the immigration justice clinic and the state department position in this case as it was in that case that is the document is in their database in their consular officer database i by that very nature covered by twelve o two s even if it was never looked at that's been the problem and the the issue here is that there are numerous documents included in that database some of which are c b p records that c d b disclosed other ones are alive and departure information which is publicly available but these are revocation documentation i think there are four or five pages you know we we've discussed that they could put a new york times article in there and it would still according to their interpretation of twelve ought to have meaning that it was not subject to play exemption so  position simply is that the structure of the statute mr kim talks about the government talks about the subject of the statute what makes sense in the immigration world you know the late chief judge calhoun compared the immigration laws in complexity there are reasons why congress would have done this because level cation proceedings involve different procedural substantive and constitutional issues and that intelligence reform and terrorism act in sync porton because it maintained those distinctions it's not legislative history to the original section but by maintaining it the distinctions and limiting judicial review of consular revocations that showed that congress was thinking about this recognize the constitutional distinctions and what they had to do to make the statute constitutionally ballot i use my kind of their own there any question so there were just no thank you thank you very much