good morning your honor already holds for petitioner mr job had mr job remained in the united states he would not have been deportable that is because congress believed that lawful permanent residence with only single minor marijuana possession conviction do not pose a significant threat to society or us citizens and so categorically exempted them from deportation but because and only because mr joe traveled abroad to visit his family stripped of his status and banished from this country mr job's innocent casual and brief trip did not meaningfully interrupt his permanent residence expelling mr job soley because he took such a trip subjected him to precisely the sort of meaningless and irrational hazards that judge hand cautioned against in the past while that the supreme court deemed irrational in flutie and that this court struck down on equal protection grounds in frances and blake you describe it as innocent casual and brief and i guess we can take your word for that but isn't the point perhaps that congress didn't want to have to do an inquiry into each trip to figure out which ones were casual innocent and brief and which ones were deliberate not casual and for some illicit purpose i mean wouldn't that be a legitimate reason why congress might choose to treat traveling folks differently than folks who stay home your honor i believe other provisions of eleven a one a c thir conduct so congress has shown i think the opposite in this very provision is it believed that it was appropriate to to ask whether in l p r zz travel meaningful an interrupted his permanent residence because casual or innocent trip and so your point i think is that there's no rational basis for this statute right you're asking us to strike it down because congress couldn't have meant or if they did it was permissible for reason has to be conceivably or reasonably the basis that the that congress the relevant decision maker was relying upon and here the neighboring provisions of the statue indicate that congress itself understood that directly to this question in the language that the supreme court using flutie bears directly here as food he explained quote no rational policy could justify banishing an l p r based solely on innocent casual and b trout he was then overruled by an act of congress right they have to give their reasons and they have to submit a statement of reasons to the court to get it through again your honor congress does not have to provide a set of reasons but even hypothetical reasons have to both a be rational and b have to conceivably or reasonably be the decision of the relevant government decision maker here congress and again your honor although the statutory holding a flutie was overruled the reasoning of both judge hands decision for this court and even ask well and the supreme court's reasoning in flutie bears directly on the question and the reasons given in flutie and indeed passed well where that this sort of a trip does not meaningfully interrupt the permanent residence of an l p r this report said in food that such a trip bears quote little rational relation to the punitive consequences of subsequent  you judge walker's opinion in korea case it's nine hundred ninety but that's within living memory and it says that's a basic principle of immigration law with limited exceptions not relevant here that a resident alien to leaves this country and attempts to enter the united states on his or her return is subject to its current exclusionary yes your honor and in footnote nine of that opinion judge not repeal the reasoning or judgment of either judge hand in the past well or the supreme court and flutie and in fact correia illustrates the very sort of travel that meaningfully interrupts a permanent residence in that case the l p r was smuggling a kilo of cocaine worth a million dollars in her luggage in the united states it's exactly in that circumstance that travel meaningfully interrupts permanent residence but where the travel itself is brief and the purpose of the travel as casual as here where m r mr job was simply traveling to visit his family which is an ordinary incidence of permanent residence there's nothing about the travel itself that meaningfully interrupted his permanent residence now your honor i want to address the various marijuana very briefly the various marijuana explanations that the government has offered a here the disparity again is between travelers and non travelers not between marijuana offenders and non offenders and so there must be a travel based justification i think your honor questions illustrate that and as i've said the judgment of the supreme court in foody and well from this core illustrates that there is no travel based justification or reserve the remainder of my time morning may please the court laura merrill to you for the attorney general of the united states this case involves a straightforward application of a statute an acted by congress which this court very recently refer reaffirmed applies to an l p r a lawful permanent resident who has left the country and comes back but tries to come back in but has a drug offense that his mr job situation felt ill squarely within the statute and the flu doctrine has no application here at all aside from the fact there is no finding of innocence casual and brief in his case because there didn't need to be it's very clear that that doctrine does not apply and there and in fact when congress passed era excuse me let me step back for a moment the flutie doctrine a rose because because of the statute in place at that time and it was at that time l p r as typically had to seek admission if they came back to the united states except under narrow circumstances now after the passage of the law that applies to mr job p r s presumptively can come back without having to formally seek admission except under the six circumstances set forth in eleven zero one a c to deportation and that's the difference and the that we said it's irrational to distinguish between two categories of l p r narcotics offenders on the honour's alluding to that that case concerned a a lot of permanent resident who had already been ordered deported and his his complaint was i want to be  available to this form for this form of relief under now repealed to twelve c and what troubled the court in francis was that although the board of immigrations appeals application of that and a wing persons both deportees as well as excludes to apply for it in the past although that what was keeping mr francis from point from being eligible for it was his failure to travel and  court said i think something along the lines of reason and fairness suggest that someone who has not left the country should be should get as least as much excuse me consideration as someone who does and in this this mr jobs case is very different from that because mr what mr job is saying is i want different grounds to apply to me of the portability in other words this is not here he's saying i should not have been subject to grounds of in admissibility at all this case involves the straightforward application of a statute that says that someone in his circumstances must seek admission but his argument is that if he hadn't traveled he wouldn't have been deported notwithstanding the conviction and because he'd travel he had this brief trip he's going to lose his his green card which is a significant  interest probably out of ignorance if he had known that this was going to happen it's unlikely he would have traveled but let's put that aside and he's saying it's a rational you're going to let people stay in the country who  possessed whatever it is under under forty grams of marijuana and just because i made this brief trip out of the country you're not going to let me back in i'm going to lose the green card and he's saying that that's that's irrational what is congress who have decided when they enacted era in one thousand nine hundred six that they would have certain grounds that make you inadmissible and certain grounds that make you deportable and admissibility by its terms reet involves persons who've left the country and it was perfectly rational in our view for the for congress to decide that offenses under eleven eighty two which include controlled substance  offenses people who have a green cards can leave the country and come back yes your honor people who have green cards could could stay in the country without being deported who commit minor offenses of this car and so your he's in a category where he could leave to decide whether he would meet the grounds of deported bill and if he had not left but the government's position is that it is perfectly rational for congress to decide that certain that certain people who fall into certain grounds need to apply for admissibility and and he did he had a hearing and he was considered for the relief that might potentially be available to someone in his position is it's waiver available for this individual a waiver he was considered for a waiver under two twelve eight h your honor yes and he didn't meet that for two reasons as set out in and i am happy to summarize them but the  reasons were that the offense had not occurred more than fifteen years prior and he also had no what is known as a qualifying relative in the united states for he wasn't available for consideration here to twelve a truly he was considered for it he was found not eligible for it bronner and also for cancellation of removal a different form of relief he was not eligible for that because of because his offense occurred in two thousand and nine within seven years of his coming to  states and as this court is held in the gomez who radiate case that's the applicant it's just the straightforward application of stop time rule so he was considered for both relief for which he might have been eligible and the in francis which for the same for the same reason a different aspect of the same point he was knots just banished he had to he had there were release potentially available to him he did not qualify for them and as the placentia case teaches in th perhaps about drug offenders being able to freely come back and just like those who who have not committed any offenses under the under the eleven zero one eight thirteen the rational bases the othe r rational bases we identified in our brief that it was perfectly rational for congress perhaps to have decided if you've had a single offense for of possession of thirty grams of marijuana or less for personal use it's not going to put the somewhat crudely it's not worth it it's not worth the resources necessarily to pursue you but for it may have decided for those who have who are traveling outside of the country we're concerned about having controlled substance offenders be able to freely come back without applying for cause it's true but we're dealing with a particular category of controlled substance and an amount for personal use it's not i happen to think that do a lot to find a rational  congress clearly thought about it they actually and they enacted a statute with different grounds for any admissibility and portability and in the cases that have been have construed  previous regime where it was exclude ability versus de portability and even  the courts indulgence i don't think there's a problem with putting the person in the right form of proceedings i don't think that's been found by this court and equal protection violation nor should there be a equal protection concern shows that he was entitle to procedural due process and he received he received that and i five i frankly am not sure he was eligible to adjust his status at the time that these events judge korman it does matter he had a weighty interest in his permanent residence in the united states that attached to his green card i want to address the waiver question had mr job remained in the united states he would not have needed a waiver because he would have qualified for the categor exception for small amounts of marijuana that is exactly the kind of disparate treatment that that this court rejected under equal protection grounds in frances in frances there was also a waiver argument made like the one that the government has offered here isn't there something you would distinction in the sense that your client having left the country upon entry exposed himself to scrutiny to determine whether he meets the requirements for entry i mean a controlled substance violation was also convicted of violation of an order of protection disorderly conduct illegal tapes whatever that is but it was only the fact entered the country to consideration of whether he qualifies for entry you're out of the question then is whether his travel is the sort of rational or meaningful reason to separate someone who is established the ties of permanent residence from this country and what the court flutie said and what this court said in the past well is that that sort of travel is not a meaningful interruption of an l p r a lawful permanent residence relationship now i do want to focus on the particular offense this is the only drug crime it is the only drug crime that has different grounds for exclude ability into portability minor minor drug possession of marijuana for personal use of less than thirty grams it is defies logic to think that minor marijuana possession alone among drug crimes requires some kind of special travel based treatment when everything else does not now everything else meaning felonies you mean things that we get you deported immediately even if you win l p r you're comparing it to mr meaner drug crimes felony drug crimes and possession drug crimes any drug crime is does not have this differential treatment differential treatment at the front end right effect your ability to stay in the country period whether you travel or not right yes your honor the point is that congress has made a judgment here that minor marijuana offenders do not pose a significant threat to society or the united states and that is why they have made them not deportable the question is whether the ones who stroll should be treated differently than those who stay and is it irrational to think that the strollers might be up to no good and we don't want to have to figure all this out at the border and so that's the rule is you that irrational question he's going to your honor yes yes it is irrational unless there's something about the travel itself that meaningful interrupts the permanent residence and so your honor as to your question before congress addressed the concerns about travel and in the concerns about cost of assessing travel with other provisions of eleven zero one a thirteen c it said one hundred eighty days or less we can assess that at the border and that's the kind of trip that interrupts permanent residents illegal conduct while traveling and that's the kind of described the significance of that sort of trip as a meaningless in irrational hazard and he said it is more important that we should not subject the hospitality of this country to meaningless irrational hazards once it is granted this is exactly the them has a burnt out taillight that one gets stopped that when he goes to jail for a long time the other one drives oh this is not this is not a distinction in how you treat people this is simply a distinction between whether somebody exposes themselves to inquiry or to inspection and somebody who doesn't you are and why isn't that at least analogous to your case not technically but in terms of a rational consideration to answer your honor in the in the example the artist gave congress would not have been made in a substantive and normative judgment that one person is not a criminal and the other one is and so what he what has happened here is that congress has made a substantive judgment about how to different a dental classes of l p r who differ only because they have done something that the supreme court in this court have multiple times designated it as as an irrelevancy he has taken a brief innocent and casual trip but you can't just stop every car to find out whether it's being driven by a felon who happens to have a gun on him or her but you can check this out coin or throw darts to decide who with a who is a felon in possession was going to be convicted of a crime and who not this court would in a moment strike that down there has to be some rational connection to the conduct that is triggering the consequences of the law and not and here this court and the supreme court have multiple times determine the travel is not such a rational consequence it's not the sort of thing that justifies as treating two otherwise identical individuals are different the second point i wanted to make sorry your honor the second point i want to make your honor is that i think the premise of the question is that congress actually made a judgment that individuals who possess a small amount of marijuana for personal use should be expelled from this country and there's two problems with that first congress actually made the opposite judgment congress made the exact the express judgment that such individuals such as ours do not pose a threat to this country the second problem with that is that this is a fundamental irrational way to go about achieving that strategy the biggest impact of this policy is to take individuals who are convicted of such offenses and get them to stay in the country because if those individuals leave the country they lose their status and so this is a totally incoherent way to achieve the goal if your goal is congress's goal was to expel minor marijuana offenders from the united states this would be a crazy way to go about trying to achieve that goal and what that indicates is that in fact just as is the history the decades old judgment on the portability shows that's just not congress's judgment that that such individuals pose a threat thank you ron thank you thank you both a reserve decision