alien who has had his asylum status terminated is subject to move ability that's the language in the statute there's no there's no language in there that says anything related to how long that last  but the regulations in the cases have always interpreted granted asylum to be an indefinite green that's from the regulations an alien a t f are twelve point twenty two to wait and you pointed out there's been very little discussion of that by opposing counsel and by b i a below but you also have twelve twenty seven any alien is deportable with the appropriate controlled substance violation conviction so why isn't there a clash there any alien is deportable and then eat your point would be but not if you're an alien with asylum status granted asylum that would be the protests but twelve twenty bar to assign an alien who has a controlled substance violation can be granted asylum there's no bar to that and so are my argument would be that because of that language in any grand asylum it is treated different is the cases all the previous cases that have come up the circuits and everything else with refugees right much less and am i right that there's a consensus every circuit that is looked at strayer co has said that that's correct that the l p r status adjustment terminates your refugee status actually i don't think the language there at the end the fifth circuit acknowledged that the language in an unpublished case when verse holder acknowledging refugee status is not necessarily terminated upon adjustment for refugees the issue there is whether a refugee can be moved a refugee has no bar to removal it's a conditional admission as i as i outlined in the brief a refugee is through the refugee resettlement process at one year they are wired to report to immigration for essentially what what b i is basically done is said we interpret that same mechanism reasoning to apply here and then my brain thinks ok well then they get deference that's logical five circuits have all followed it i think is it the fifth of no it's the sixth circuit in small job that applied it to the a side least circumstances so why wouldn't we give them deference to say well the same things working in fact may be stronger in this case because mr ali had to request the o p r status with all the benefits that he gets the protection from sudden return if there's no more fear of prosecution he gets a law when he elected to take l p r status but in that context therefore he's surrendering his asylum that's their logic and it seems rational why wouldn't we defer to it all to the deference question in here when ali requests l p r the a g isn't terminating his asylum status he's requesting a quote adjustment and alteration and then i think your answer is well he's that actually what's happening is he's now status and then when they're be naturalized they are put into removal proceedings and then it's the base case that even explains that a b in o b i case explains it best and that would be a matter of hundred sixty five case and that's eleven i in indecision for fourteen and in that case it dealt with essentially a dual citizen a citizen of mexico in the united states under the time when a citizen of the united states if they voted in a hearing again yes now in your brief you said he was forced into that am i right that the record doesn't bear out that he was for it the essentially and he's pro se and from dealing with a lot of per se a lot of it occurs off the record in a is the only way that so why wouldn't why isn't that september twenty three the functional equivalent of of asylum being terminated in as i take it what they quit the court concludes if you put aside the credibility and the collateral stopping argument you just look at the district made the alternate finding that your party what to call the p p p is now the one in power and lo and behold you've traveled back there twice so we don't find a fear prosecution anymore that's the functional equivalent of a terminations it's a function of development we come with that would be the issue of where the burden is on the terminations the burden would lie on the government and it would be in the government's burden to prove these things right  let's say you win with us is there anything stopping from the a g from turning around and terminating under two away there's nothing stopping from them from from implementing and trying to establish and in your experience with exactly those findings alien has been going back twice no problem could live outside of karate his political party now runs the show wouldn't that be almost conclusive it not i would say just in my experience yet i've decided those facts probably wouldn't wouldn't go for  the issue that would comes up most often is the travelling back to your country that would be a problem that would be the problem now are i mean in the record bears out but when he to i mean i he testified to that during the hearing but that was also in the context of reapplying for which now you don't know of any case law that says that if you are firm and at least seek l p r or if you affirmatively reapply you have therefore surrender your asylum status i don't know there's no sort of thing of us becoming l p r do i keep my protect ok but i sort of have a problem the other way because do you i mean aside these want l p r status right because if they don't get it as soon as their country gets safe everyone thinks you're being repatriated that's the world of refugees an asylum is the whole point is to get him back to where they want to be but that leaves a sword of damocles over their head this guy totally integrates into the united states he's here for decades the one thing he doesn't want is exactly what happened pakistan becomes his party so he wants the l p r status because he can't be sent back that way the government can't terminate him he's in l p r protect his debt then he makes the mistake of dealing in drugs and now he's  the when when it is granted by d h s and it's terminated there's no essential there's no judicial review of that so there's not going to be a line of cases and circuits and answer thing what would happen in that cases they would refer the person to remove proceedings and then they get  have a fear of persecution correct that's twelve thirty one so why i am very sensitive to the miki concerns that we don't want to create a rule that allows any government to sort of come up with a small charge conviction and then we've got the refugees out of the country that's a bad move for us to announce but at the same time if any alien ever has the final protection of twelve thirty one why are we that concerned well thirty one how the asylum process works as my example of a controlled substance is not a bar to assign an aggravated fellow get ready a bar on asylum but he would still be eligible for withholding and so that that that language while it's incorporated serves i reference but it persecution or there was torture etc etc it's a disgrace there grant so someone inherent in the concept is that it's arguably a transitory situation as opposed to permit here for example where the country conditions change or otherwise it update so the notion of it being like permanent is a little bit inconsistent with the nature of sort of what it is no words as you say who is first the regulations clearly say it's indefinite it's it's spelled out there it's indefinite well it says indefinite but we know by definition it can be terminated but in debt but that's what i would say is or i'm saying anything i get it's just right it's indefinite but inherent in the notion that it can be terminated indefinite doesn't me permanent for ever terminated and that essentially he needs a terminations they would you can see the i j a could terminate oh yes yeah i don't wouldn't have to be at the government's initiative ok do it all the time and the like isn't that exactly what he didn't september because it wasn't at the point of term terminations a threshold issue that's comes up in the vx case at least after terminations then my client could apply for asylum and the judge would have a hearing on the new asylum application under the next wasn't an lp our case it was not it was a it was a situation he had never adjusted i mean it and the government when it comes up high ask you now what do you understand the government objection to what you're asking for going back for the germination honestly they've never really addressed and many things that you talk about you can embrace that point you have to do it now but at some point before you sit down or no clearly is this an academic esoteric esque exercise of those wading through to real id or rar and all arrests or down to the crutches you know you've come from washington to argue this case as opposed to the u s attorney's office so surely there's a a message here of sources you want us to get is that accurate straight is of course i mean isn't there a narrow ground here you know for a resolution he says he wants to go back for the terminations for a new term a nation here what's the government's what out conceding or waving you know any policies i mean but cut to the crutches what's the objection to that if the action would be that petition or mr lee was not in to await status ok so essentially the government would be bringing term nation proceedings against an l p r which is no statutory to do it at all fishing or after being granted as know the facts of the case and reading the briefs on the record after be granted asylum  question then on that is do you tell them when they do that adjustment and request it do you say to them and by the way you've given up asylum because we construe this to be it's not peter pan one thing and the other if you're losing it does the government ever tell them that they're surrendering the asylum protection does that but why that seems enormous why if the government thinks there's the magic moment and now they've lost asylum protection if they commit any c s a violation just a drug trial and they're not good things but other than marijuana anything counts and you're saying neither this record nor your knowledge as o i l is you tell these pro se aliens that it looks really attractive to be an l p r and every refugee is going to be forced to be an l p r but you're refugees it should do it first sideways that's what they've gone but i think it's important because under to await the status is temporary i mean it exists but it can always be terminated or there's always the opportunity that because it's it's not protection as as counsel stated it's actually relief from the movie so it's not protection under the cap or as you mentioned withholding it's a met sort of a mandatory you cannot return the individual back to the country here asylum conveying you know the status to vanquish through terminations proceedings so an individual who's been granted asylum status would want this extra layer of protection which is l p r status which is then a path to united states citizenship so when you say why people give it up once you become a united states citizen then you're not you're not any alien the key points out of course i mean to await says it itself if you get nationality status then of course you're safe again but this guy was in l p r status for decades it's really hard to get nationality so the government's position is that as you said it's an implicit thank wishing for that treaty words it's cessation were  at the regulation twelve zero eight point four t g o aus asylum applicants to continue applying for asylum even after they've acquired p r status where does that fit in this well i'm not sure that's specifically part of you know this was only part of this case isn't a part of this case but if it floats out there and you know right because that's where if that's true it's true it's  specific language or the other then the layered status is a reality i mean we may i may be really dumb about this stuff and practitioners know it but that if that to take i had to study that but therefore you've got layered status although i mean the matter of c j article three court case that's correct your honor i mean but but the agency that is required in the first instance to analyze the statute yes to that ministers so but but refugees i can see more logic because by operation of law they are altered and adjusted i suppose what smear co must contemplate is there for that is it terminations by the government but it's a leap to apply it to a si lease who voluntarily accept this when you say voluntarily accept adjustment of status how they behave what they voluntarily seek it and they're not told when they do it that they've lost because it isn't because it is an added benefit you know in much greater than that of asylum i mean one has as we discussed it's a path to citizenship it allows for family members to come to the united states it allows an obviously for work authorization allows for public benefits there are there a decision comes down there we are you know and then unfortunately it doesn't go up on appeal so we don't have any circuit precedent anywhere there and that's correct on a and but the board when this question was presented when ever they don't want to discuss and help us out with eleven fifty eight they just constantly say that's not the situation but if you look at it that's based on extraordinary treaty c circumstances mean government can terminate we don't have the us government ever terminating this guy we've got him asking for a special us legal status in between l p r then we have the b i a with no reasoning saying and the consequence of that we can have it which i presume we never told and i think you'd know if we did is you've lost protection that you once had and we have this regulation and i've just read you which is  in the briefs i mean you say you're not familiar with it but it didn't spring fully born in my head i got it from the briefs i mean well certainly your honor i would suggest that the reason the board didn't status because the changed circumstances at home well i'm not i'm not aware of their own i mean i know that the government is would be able to bring terminations proceedings i mean i think you know one point is  j i think the board rectified that sort of tension that once you or own a lawful permanent resident terminations proceedings would it would really be no authority for termination proceedings i mean it's it seems so what's the protection for the parade of horrible situation which is a gentleman like ali instead of pakistan syria and he commits a drug offense cocaine possession and and yet we know you'll get be headed if he goes back but he's deportable and there's dick a fear of prosecution totally continues to exist what's the protection for him because you're saying he's lost well th individuals so but there are grounds of protection which are mandatory which the attorney general the innovation judge must grant if there's a you know risk of harm you know ninety percent chance of so you know some withholding of removal you know a higher burden or convention against torture or protection so there are protections and in that so i wouldn't in this case you want first question if you were asked why wouldn't you just want to get back down to the i j a to assess the situation it looks like almost for sure the government's going to win he's traveling back and forth to pakistan his party's in power but with that seems like a really easy little step that doesn't force us to make a sweeping ruling as to all aside lee's america  second option i would thought think that you would want to argue is that the september thirteenth hearing was what i said a functional equivalent of a two away terminations that's not it that neither of those are options that while i think same based on the fact that and there are many grounds to charge someone with to know for termination but essentially the ground that he will turn on multiple occasions to pakistan in the pakistani country conditions the change that that would certainly be grounds for termination so which sort of a bogus why that would be a few futile process no way the government sees value to remain so the b i a can articulate the connective tension between you saying there's no due layers that is in the end words would seem to say some different sort of that's such an overarching guiding principle why is it not enshrined somewhere even if we had to it's silent on it the board interpret it to zero nine to say that once an individual adjusts his status and which is an affirmative step by that individual to become a lawful permanent resident that asylum status term lurking behind all of this our treaty provisions and commitments that we've made and we expect other countries to make going back decades and you know everyone every day we have headlines of political  entering into countries and as i said at the outset i wouldn't want these treaty provisions that seem virtually verbatim into our law to allow every other country to say we've caught you with drugs so now even though you're a political silent and there are grave difficulties you're silenced as gone because you've you've adopted this intermediate status called l p r in the united states and by getting the benefits that gives you've lost the protection that you had you've lost the protection because of  and but those could be very small acts with very huge consequences that were originally validated by the us government the this person had a fear of persecution we've never had a hearing to say he doesn't what he's done is he's violated one of our laws bad thing to do but we've never even informed him by accepting the very attractive status he's lost the most important thing to him which was not being sent back to a hostile environment it would be his the criminal contacts you've got to tell people what they're relinquishing what you're on i would say that it's pretty plain that when you're applying but it wasn't even to the b i a when they first re man did b i a until very recently interpreted the other way so you say it's really clear they did an about face in this very case we saw when it happened well i think because at that time to be a have not had a presidential decision on this specific so is your position that every single aside leave that it was given asylum status before this switching time has now sort of been put on notice that what may have been true and according to the b i a was their view of the law is now not why i took the position of the government is that when you are granted discretionary elise in the form of asylum and in order and then you are given that benefit and you seek additional benefits which is to become a lawful permanent resident you are granted that after answer which is are they all told that the l p r that i'm guessing the vast majority applied for that good status toward citizenship has an unspoken huge relinquishment are they told that you said you don't extent that they do the arguably speak to their being door status or reflect on at all you know follow it in the form of a letter brief either in support or opposition to the to follow because we want some you know yes remark down you know you're right go you know get on it and then when you found a council opposite you can have ten day seven days to reply if you need to but mainly it's not so much argument they were looking for but did that time now and you know what the policy it may or may not be dispositive in terms of how resolved clay case but it certainly will be illuminating and force us office so you know you're from the government and they get you plane tickets money's worth you know we want you to follow it and because we're zoned in here to correctly decide the case but there are a lot of moving parts here with these different style than just reading toil away you know rest of this is not self evident what's going on here we recognise attorney general is a huge amount of discretion here but but is not a year resting on your just said because we all every jurisdiction to do it think they are under the brief was was just to vies the court that there is a jurisdictional bar but the government also conceded that with respect to the questions of law the court does not jurisdiction to review is because he's an asylum he has no nation and he's eligible to apply for asylum travel documents other other permanent residents are not allowed to apply for a travel document only an aside legal p r he doesn't keep those traveling yes he does until int just in here is another example of when he goes back twice he's disregarded that warning and your view is the government now could terminate they could then in the attorney general has to determine that so it's a it's a terminations hearing that that the government's going to say we don't have the resources to terminate people that have the lek to l p r status we don't even focus on them anymore they're now on their way to citizens and we are looking at change government circumstances we can't spend the time to look at every cover and that would be i would say that's part plus girl discretion they they can choose who they want to terminate not to me but they still have to do once they catch him with the drugs you have no problem with them committing terminations as a parallel proceeding government he can just say stay quiet and say prove i went back to pakistan but when he's forced to apply or he has to apply for asylum stay in the country he has to bring that as part of his application so he doesn't the burden is not really put on the govern for another example it comes up as family adjustments are not going to address this in the policy manual this is a weird situation that happens but a family member of an aside these consider derivative aside if the family member the principal becomes a permanent resident the asylum the derivative can become permanent resident but u s c s takes the policy in its in their policy manual if the principal becomes a permanent becomes a citizen prior to the becoming a permanent resident derivatives derivative asylum status is cut off because the principle is no longer an alien green asylum because he's not an alien which gets back to the mickey's argument about any nationality that's in the policy in the manual about not just that something we after week we've always considered like ok would how does this affect your family i deal with refugees and assigns all the time i have to time the naturalization of the parent based on the child up to make sure the child gets a permanent residence card before the parent gets it naturalism and this is all things that are considered when you practice in this area and so the policy that i'm arguing is basically what the policy is always did in the last the last thing i'd like to point out  readjustment but they even address they're not answering this question we're asking you to answer no one's answered in a court you know one of the things that strikes me about this whole situation is something that maybe you need to think about too and maybe i'm or may not fit comfortably with the whole regulatory framework that sit underneath it and that's the problem that some of the problem here would be i a fully you know from the head of zeus comes this decision and the question  well but there's all this regulatory framework under it and it may not fit with that and so i think that maybe what's happened here and so the question is what do you do with that decision and of course it didn't go up so we got no benefit of a circuit court looking at it we don't have a lawyer of your caliber looking at it yours and yours too so there we are and that's part of the problem here i think it may be part of the problem and that's something that you need to think about what what is there in the regulatory set up in the rules and so on this lawyers been so helpful telling us about it doesn't quite fit with that thing  in that spirit what would you say if your opponents answer were simply in there is this they hadn't thought it all through but they get deference i would say there's no deference to you because the language of two a week and they didn't get the language and i would desk dealing with sort of pro bono counsel in immigration cases that sort of an e q beta you might say you give me a ballpark i take it you do take a number of the pro bono cases immigration you  small of as a percentage of cases i mean it would be i would say less than one percent the issue really is the back won't be a row number i mean just nothing scientific and i would say in the used an area one hundred maybe one hundred fifty cases total ok