not immigrant status the government's view that his mission is not inherent and not immigrant status is untenable the i am a distinguishes between categories of persons who are admitted and those who are not some persons with lawful status such and parolees are not admitted individuals and not immigrant status are admitted as the d s s policy manual states and not an immigrant is a person who is admitted for a specific period of time the i am express exception for nonimmigrant crimen demonstrates that unless congress makes an exception admission is inherent and not immigrant status the government's primary response is to argue that the statute considers t p s recipients to be a status but not admitted but if congress intended only that limited function it need only have said that p p s recipients are considered to be unlawful status period a function served by the additional phrase as a nonimmigrant is to ensure that t p s recipients are considered admitted just as all non immigrants are this is the only sensible reading of the statute t p s recipients are subject to regulate scrutiny and risk removal by coming forward and at people in non immigrant status go through a process to get there that includes admission and inspection and there's another way to get to non immigrant status and that is by being a t p s recipient and your argument seems to me to be that well if you're in non immigrant status as a t p s recipient you must be and been admitted uninspected are treated as such because that's the other way to get a non immigrant status and i wonder why they're just not two different routes and if you come in one route the t p s route now doesn't mean that you've checked every box to get in through the other routes so that it seems to me that i can't follow the logic of your main a to have been admitted and inspected and therefore you would say well they say they should be regarded as having checked that box when they are you determining parole in other situations but that's not what the statute does a exactly on point in that case and nonimmigrant who was who received their status from inside the country as a u b s non immigrants argued that he was not admitted and a government  on what it means to be admitted in that case yes so what they question law particular case was whether he that particular person was was a portable as someone who had committed a crime within a certain period of admission as and what his position was because he had not received his nonimmigrant status at the border he was not being to have been admitted as that term is defined and  but the government and the board disagreed with that position and as they explained the i a e a consistently treats all night immigrants except for an alien criminals who are expected as having been admitted that is that is the defining characteristic of nonimmigrant status is the fact that they were admitted into that status and so in that case the border how that i'm like a file you for instance try not to bed at night immigrants are admitted we where do we get it just from the definition we assume that if you gain a certain status you assume for the purposes of gaining that status you must have been there but we know for a fact that's congress typically uses when it wants to create a legal fiction and the legal fiction that congress created here is that t p s recipients being to be in lawful nonimmigrant status for the purpose of adjusting status and under section twelve i see that and look for it to be at the moment it seems to make sense to say i do i mean you could say you're here mr smith mr smith you came it is absolutely illegally absolutely wrong the j that you're here and if you're here we're not going to ship you back to a place where you're really in danger ok well you're in danger but once it's over good bye that's a way of looking at it or you managed well we want to keep you here what you're hearing you're in a terrible situation you might have been here for a long time so muar for a long time the attorney general could say ok we waive all that i question you say well it must mean and it wouldn't in the u v s a case because they had both things separately so there must be some way of becoming a non immigrant here lawfully status oh why doesn't that mean that congress contemplated that one could be and not an immigrant status without having been admitted to the united states justice alito that is the very same language that i was just discussing that language simply refers to the possibility that someone could obtain you visa status by changing to that status after already having been it made it into a different status and it was important for congress to use those words intended to overcome see to that interpretation renders the words as a nonimmigrant their personal s and that is because under section c two multiple forms of lawful status can satisfy that provision some of those forms of lawful status such as asylum do not require admission but congress chose a form of lawful status nonimmigrant status in which admission is inherent and the same way for example that having been and you're right that usually we have the hesitate to interpret a statute in the way that would make any of its provisions in operative or relevant in the case of being in however the government response that being in continuously a lawful status your reply brief did not comment on the government's argument because it is a way to understand that there is not a supreme superfluous argument with lawful nonimmigrant status are by definition inspected and admitted if that's not true can you so when this case you know i don't i don't believe that ok so what makes it true i mean you say by definition i mean i want to look to some statutory language that tells me that that's true where am i supposed to luck well i think you are left especially i love an eighty four dollars that i hate which is the faction about reince that you know that stands for the broad proposition that your state and i mean that the section says the admission to the united states of and the alien this in an immigrant but why does that suggest that admission is something that all nonimmigrant different and you said well we shouldn't we shouldn't look to that because it was passed after word but just a fact the twelve fifty five am could have been written without saying something like you know notwithstanding section  eighty four suggests that there's no rule of the kind that you're talking about in the st instance i would point the court again to the board's discussion of that very language and eleven me and  me of we need to be careful about tinkering with the immigration statutes as written particularly one congress has some such a primary role here congress as i understand it passed a recent bill in the house i should say passed a recent bill on this issue and obviously has not passed the senate yet but just kind of a big picture why should we jump in here when congress is very focused on immigration and when you support for prove any legislation that provides for adjustment lawful temporary or permanent resident alien status for any alien receiving t p s so if congress tied or the senate you know and the bill that congress passes tied its own hands and that way it would seem unusual that in the same breath by using nonimmigrant status congress and tended to delegate to the executive much broader authority to treat t p s those in t p s status as eligible for p r status based only on the word nonimmigrant could you address that sure both parties agree to ask for allows p b s recipients to make use of the existing mechanism for adjusting because as you know those who were in lawful status before for example if they overstayed student visas but then became eligible for t p s status you know that overstaying is forgiven if there was a gap or similarly included hundreds of thousands of individuals who had entered the country i'm awfully it's also an odd way to write back possession given that the senate writing of the act contains that very provision back that the government claims this does but adjusting status no one would question that congress intended for t p s recipients to be considered to have been paroled for purposes of adjusting status because those two things are the same the same is true here having been admitted isn't parent and having not an immigrant status and it is the only characteristic of non immigrant status that is relevant to adjusting status congress has choice to consider it p p s recipients as being and not immigrant status as opposed to some other form of status it interprets a statutory term in accordance with its statutory definition for petitioners to be eligible to adjust to lawful permanent resident status they need to show among several other things but they were admitted into the united states but it needed is a defined recipients to be admitted by giving them lawful status as non immigrants but the t p s statutes to part lawful status benefit directly tracks the two part lawful status requirement for adjustment of status to t p s statute does not address the multiple other requirements for adjustment of status such as admission and that's confirmed by the fact that when the lawful status benefit is available only quote during the t p s period which strongly suggests that it does not retroactive collapses because nothing in the eye in a defiance nonimmigrant status to necessarily include admission and more fundamentally petitioner's argument relies on implications and an unstated cross reference but congress does not make unambiguous exceptions to statutory definitions in such circular dissuades and that is particularly true in this statute where congress did create several express exceptions to the various requirements for adjustment of status but did not provide any comparable exception for s recipients t p s offers temporary protection against removal during a crisis and it preserves the existing opportunities of previously had not admitted non immigrants to adjust their status but u s c s reasonably determined that congress did not establish t p s as a special pathway to permanent residence for non citizens who are already barred from that privilege because of priti p s conduct mr houston i was struck by the extent to which your brief u exclude your reading congress did not unambiguously mandate the opponent's position and of course you ended by saying that it would not be entirely on reasonable for the court to rule in your favor i made that last one up but that's areas which has indicated that when an agency out in this case has consistently interpreted the statute with the force of law the agency position prevails if it's a reasonable construction of the statute and the court has no need to decide whether there's any other construction that would be possible i think that what the court's precedents dictate as the analytical approach to these types of cases and we just think the court should follow that you well did you think that the search stage because in your response to the petition for certain this is a quote the court of appeals reading clearly represents the best one in light of the statutory tax structure and context is that still the department's position that your reading is clearly the best one you we absolutely contend that the government's position is a better reading of the statutory tax and even if the court was not imply inclined to apply share on different the result would be the same we think our interpretation is the better one all we're saying that we don't need in this case to to show that there is no other interpretation as and that i think aficionados have acknowledged in their brief in order for them to prevail they need to show that the statute unambiguous we forecloses the government's position the petitioners here were allowed to leave the country for a brief visit or brought in return would they then be eligible for adjustment of status not under the government current interpretation of the statute justice thomas although the government announced that interpretation in case in a decision called in receipt r c c in two thousand and twenty and it did not make that decision and mission and lawful immigration status are distinct concepts and meet your and your immigration status refers to your permission to be present in this country and as i think the example of alien crewman demonstrates there's nothing in the eye and they that bars congress from saying to a particular group of people you will have the status of non immigrants and that's exactly what congress says to persons who come here as crewmen on foreign vessels while they are here they make a lawful entry so they would seem to fit the definition of admitted but congress says you are lawful non immigrants but you are not admitted there is nothing in the eye and say that proposes that because admission is not a constituent part of what it means to have nonimmigrant status well why couldn't they create the designation for the groom and be considered an exception to the general rule the reason why that exception for crewmen is in their justice thomas is again because alien crewmen are they do make a lawful entry and they of course come here lawfully on their vessel and when that vessel land so they would seem to fit the ordinary definition of it it it so i think it makes sense but congress would clarify you are not i mean and while you are here for the purposes of staying you know until you vessel departs i think that is a perfectly sensible thing to do but at the broader point is that when you look at the various nonimmigrant status is better described inspection eleven a one in a fifteen you will not see anything that says the person in order to have the status must necessarily have been at mid we simply use the admission process to bring in people who come here lawfully from overseas but that is not part of what it means to have an immigrant status thank you mug following on from justice thomas i take the argument of the petitioner simply this you look through the united states look everywhere everywhere every tunnel every mountain every like every human being you come across who is not it's true if they are in on immigrants and they are here lawfully they are here as non immigrants they will have been either deemed to be or actually been lawfully admitted so it goes along with the game there we are but one i admit there are two exceptions ones crewman where they use both terms and that could just be over insurance because they wanted those main question other examples that i missed and you know there are no rudders then aren't we in the world where there is ambiguity in the statute and we have to get into the chevron issue which as you well know is a big issue where there are two sides and should this be the case who we get into the more i both questions justice briar i there i don't think there are any other classes of non immigrants who are not a importantly one of the key reasons for that is that in that there are certain kinds of non immigrants who receive that status within the united states after an unlawful entry and those people of course would not meet the statutory definition of admitted in the ordinary case but in some cases congress has nevertheless labeled those classes of non immigrants as admitted and of course congress is free by context to change the meaning of admitted and it's done that a couple of times and as you know i think the new visa example shows this to congress has sometimes treated congress as specified that you non immigrants are eligible to adjust their status whether they were admitted or otherwise acquired that status so we think that it is not necessary for the court to reach to get into chevron deference here because we simply think we have the better interpretation of the statutory tax if the court was inclined to the court thought that the statute is ambiguous i think that combination of various sources where the government has consistently interpreted this statute the same way that we do since one thousand nine hundred and one in a decision by the board of immigration appeals and a decision that was approved just lawful by the attorney general and in a response hasn't taken a position on that your honor and i wouldn't want to foreclose the agency from considering whether there is an alternative position the last time that the agency looked at this question in h g it said we think the statute is unambiguous at chevron's step one but it absurd that some courts of appeals had disagreed with it and so it said if we're wrong and the statute is ambiguous we would reach the same interpretation for all of the same reasons i think that this court's precedents say that in a case like that the court will simply look at whether the agency's interpretation is reasonable and if so it need not decide whether any other interpretation is possible and i if i might just make say one more thing about why i think that sort of judicially modest course is particularly appropriate here it's because the court has recognized that in immigration law in particular congress has expressly delegated interpretive authority to the attorney general and the administration of the i and a and particularly something like this setting the terms of humanitarian protection for foreign nationals implicates foreign relations questions that really belong best to the executive both members of the court may have different opinions so are you saying that it is necessary for us to address your no your honor the court can simply find that the government has the better interpretation of the statutory text and and say no more and we certainly think that that that is the case for all of the reasons that we have discussed here today petitioners so if we say if we say the government the government has the better interpretation for close you from later changing your position no your honor not under the court's decision in brand x the court  the agency could theoretically decide that although it's taken a position that it has had this position since one thousand nine hundred and one it studied the question further and concluded that the statute was in big u s and that it should resolve that ambiguity by  different interpretation it's possible the agency could decide to take that course in a future case but i think it's not a question the court has reason to address now because the agency has an interpretation and it's reasonable but even if even if you didn't want to get in the chevron framework our interpretation is the better one well i really don't understand your your answer when you refer to brad there are you not that into sharon i think the court's decision in brand x recognizes that it is because of all theoretically that there can be more than one reasonable construction oh a statute i think what we're saying is if you don't want it you own or you getting into the chevron frame or altogether you could do so by simply saying that our interpretation is better than the one that petitioners outraged but i don't the more standard procedure i think in a case like this before to precedent show would be to ask  case of an alien who's given c p s whom the attorney general authorized to travel abroad temporarily temporarily and who returns to the us in accordance with such authority the arion shall be the playing tax it seems to me that any t p s holder who is granted permission to travel abroad and return would be admitted within the meaning of section  dollars yet you're telling me that the agency has said no in two thousand and twenty it makes no sense to me counsel you yourself argue that there is a difference between being  between lawful nonimmigrant status and admission an admission and if that's the case how do you how can you win on that argument should go by its terms those people have been admitted just to sort of merrill we think that the clear import of emptiness this statute is to make the point that when a person who has t p s is authorized to travel abroad and comes back they come back and return in the same immigration status that they had when they went out and i think that is certainly the most natural reading about the vat tax and it's at minimum it's a respect for just a sort of merriment i disagree with that i think i have the other thing to note about this argument of course that it's outside the scope of the question presented because it only applies to people who travel abroad and the question presented in this case was about the effect of granting t p s itself but again i think the clear import of emptiness is to specify that a person goes out and comes back in the same status and what that's going to mean for a person like petitioners is that they will return to the united states in the status of someone who has no lawful that so could you tell me how you read that provision certainly justice kagan i think the purpose of a weapon eighty four is to specify the conditions that the government may view to admit non immigrants of service forty two sat some of the restrictions on requirements for that admission process and then imposing some of congress own does seem though mr used in that these phrases like admission is a non immigrants  repeatedly in the immigration statute so that you know congress seems to be assuming that immigrants are in fact admitted and that the the the status and mission distinction that you continually press on us is really not a distinction with respect to non immigrants your honor i think it is certainly true that the overwhelming majority of people who have non immigrant status get it by coming here  and the fact that there are references throughout the i a e a and in the regulations and in the policy manual and things like that to people at mit it is not immigrants just reflects that reality most people come here lawfully and that's how they get nonimmigrant status but it remains true that both as a matter of statutory text and keep in mind there's a definition of admitted in this statue and so i think it's a matter of text as a matter of ordinary usage admission is a factual event it's something that happens at a particular place and time  status refers to permission that the person has and so there's just nothing on as you know and then let me switch gears a little bit on your view under what conditions can a d p s holder actually become a lawful permanent resident oh your honor there are tens of thousands of t p s holders who have successfully adjusted their status to lot of people to lawful permanent residence people do this every year the only thing they really want to have one of the conditions in which they can do it sure they just need to have come here originally and been admitted they need to have been admitted as a a student or an all pair or a temporary worker or something like that anyone who comes here lawfully in one of the non immigrant status is exempt from and would be able to demonstrate that they are here when they have been admitting it and then even t p s will allow them to stay here longer than their status would normally have done and the purpose of section asked for is to say as you know we knew even if you were originally out of status while you are being allowed to remain here we will preserve your existing opportunity to adjust your status thank you notes and create a new opportunity to scores which thank you have no questions or this time just explore them with you one use you argue that we could just say in some least reasonable your interpretation is at least reasonable and not on in the us fully foreclosed nd options we can just say that your interpretation is the better one canada we would urge the court to follow the births of those proposals because i think it is the most consistent with the court's precedent although candidly i well i mean just you know in courts of appeals certainly interpretation the st one you wouldn't be saying is the better interpretation you're just saying it's in least a reasonable interpretation of the statutory language i think that would be our preference your honor because we think it follows most directly from discourse immigration preference and because you know we think that the agency is the one who is charged with the administration of this statute and if the agency you know we think the court generally does not foreclose the agency from thinking about the problem in the future and so i think it is notable that under this court's precedents petitioners have a high bar to clear we think they have been cleared and we think it's sufficient for the day for the court to say that right how many people are in the country who are in this same status roughly even to do you mean temporary protective status your honor yes stright we understand that there are approximately four hundred thousand although the government understanding approximately eighty five thousand of them have already successfully adjusted to lawful permanent resident and one of the amicus briefs of the i'm an american immigration lawyers association and others says that roughly eighty percent of those have been living in the united the defining characteristic of temporary protected status is that it's not temporary well it has turned out i think to laugh some of these crises have turned out to last for a while and the united states i think has been extraordinarily generous and it is about them and to the strength of our humanitarian commitments that we have allowed people who have found themselves stranded here during a crisis to stay here in for a very long time but r recipients receive out out us with the you know on ambiguous awareness but it is a temporary form of relief from removal that will not last forever because the government has to continuously we evaluate whether the conditions in the home country persist and moreover the recipient himself have to reregister for the status on an ongoing basis so everyone understand i understand that people are very often positioned year after year and i'm sure you understand what  opinion and one thing i just want to start by clarifying i think the chief justice presser a little bit on this is it correct to say then that the government has changed its position from the start stage to the merits stage about whether the statute is clear ambiguous no your honor the agenc precedents have indicated that the court won't foreclose the agency in a case like this i'm considering whether any other alternative is possible ok well then i guess where justice alito was when he said he didn't really understand the difference between that position and you're asking deference and i guess i also think if that's your position how do we avoid addressing some of the questions the issues that the petitioner raises about whether the interpretations that the government has offered here are even  suggested that the government has the better reading of the statute that would be sufficient to affirm the judgment below and the court could say no more we would the court we would also be perfectly fine with the court saying that the government interpretation is reasonable and petitioners haven't met their bar to show that our position is unambiguous we foreclosed either of those conclusions would be fine with us because we think that they would refer me to prove the writ legitimacy of the government's long standing inconsistent interpretations interpret ing the statute and we think that generally the court recognizes that because of that feature and because it implicates questions of foreign affairs the court should not reach out to foreclose the agency from ever deciding a case you know  time bar in the i had a but if that you know insofar as that's true it's because congress has created a special provision for them in section twelve fifty five am labeling some of them as admitted and i think that just reinforces that congress is a houston thank you mr chief justice i'd like to just briefly recap the textual reasons why the agencies statutory construction is not unambiguous we foreclosed versus the definition of admitted which petitioners st concede they can't meet nd is the direct textual  parallelism between the two party lawful status benefits in the t p s statute and the two part lawful status requirement for adjustment of status which suggests the t p s statute doesn't address the other requirements for adjustment of status like admission rd is the fact that the lawful status benefit is available only quote during the t p s period which i think is strong evidence that it does not retroactively cure preety p s conduct that made the person you know if you will for adjustment of status and finally are all the other places in the eye and say where congress has expressly authorized various classes of aliens to adjust their status notwithstanding their entry without admission petitioners haven't explained why congress didn't follow any similar course for t p s recipients and so the court need only hold in this case that for all of those reasons the agency's interpretation of the statute was reasonable thank you thank you admitted to the united states as a not immigrant who is continuing to maintain that status and quote congress they are expressly equated the concept of being admitted as a nonimmigrant with having lost full status as a nonimmigrant and that is entirely consistent with how that concept is treated throughout the i a e a now i think i heard government counsel if you can see it but if you look and i reply no and on every mountain and this country every single nonimmigrant except for alien crew man and you visa holders are in fact admitted alien criminals are the exception about proves the rule because congress had to create an express exception for them in the statu admitted it permits adjustment if i had been physically present in the united states for a continuous period since the date of admission as a nonimmigrant i'm not sure i understood counsel's attempt to distinguish away by car make up so the case regulations the only category of not immigrants who are not admitted are alien