directed from the clerk's office to address two points related to this case we just want to make sure you were alerted they're not the only issues but we just heard money doesn't work i'll be happy to answer any questions but let me start of the regulations and the ultra year temporal condition two years must be alien must work for two years carrying on his record a professional occupation of ok sure outside of that temporal imitation there's no other there's lots of things unclear you know are they supposed to wear uniform well that's how you know i mean if it were that it's full time employment that would be one thing and that's a that's a necessary characteristic of carrying on you know how carrying on how as a full time employment but you know there's a lots of things that aren't stated in terms of carrying on how do you contend well the other point i'd make is a caring one is used in the framework of the statute twice carrying on before solely for the purpose of carrying on so after you arrive it's the purpose of carrying on and in the past is carrying on but you are you're supposed addition really only relate to that has been carrying on united states solely for the purpose of carrying on so that would be spectacle right carrying on certainly ok we're as has been carrying on now your court a definite my idea of full  time work with both of those but the purpose of carrying on full time employment has been carrying on full time employment but your definition of an authorized status doesn't really work well it works completely i'm glad you brought up this certainly but i think my point in i believe your point as well is that there must be some kind of nexus to the transition in the statute and certainly having wrongful employment that the terms and conditions of your employment three this provision not having to do with the minister provision and how does that forward relate to immigration status has come here to relating to people's representation of their prior work experience  can you say that that directive from congress justifies the imposition here she could have been more clear and precise i do apologize but we do need to look at the agency's justification and that did appear explicitly at seventy two federal register to row for seven for eight that was the preamble to the notice propose says nothing about immigration status it's really directed to that the representation regarding work experience position etc exactly so there are two justification one is to mitigate and prevent  the vocation occupation for example tax filings or i nine documents that are also required by separate information of the statute so that those documents are readily available because the person had gained their experience through this goes to a broader question of when and whether beneficiaries of immigrant visa petitions can come into court when they believe the agency has revoked their petition in some way that would harm them  perhaps outside of the question of adjustment of status for war on the basis of that particular immigrant visa petition what he's done up and unite his petition correct and automatically if we if we  both through administrative actions of various kinds as well as through these application overseas i was surprised we could argue on that point that well certainly it's true he grew overseas but he would have to be out for ten years and the church might go away and he might stop being a pastor there are lots of contingencies but i would argue there are a lot of contingencies on the positive side as well applications that he could make or relief that would allow him to ultimately close and with the section two point five adjustment either before the service or before an immigration judge i was totally convinced by the argument that the two year prohibition is necessarily inconsistent with one hundred eighty days but we sent you a letter inquiring as to the lead in to the adjustment of status provision do you believe that that lead in is is applicable such that it's not withstanding this whole sasha tory scream it was inconsistent for the government to come out with a regulation which you know if a pastor came into the united states began serving his or her church and was then later grounds of inadmissibility to the united states none of which are adjudicated at the petition stage whether it's an immigrant petition for a religious worker another worker a family member etc the government has years seventy years for some nationalities for those families of petitions to be able to sort of come to the front of the line and be eligible to immigrate ration system are willing to wait very long times for the that carrying on is not a big of us term disagree as it relates to kerry going to religious vocation congress chose those words because the word employment doesn't necessarily apply to a buddhist monk or a catholic nun who may not receive compensation for stretch it to say that because congress created a temporal limitation of two years congress knew how to say that they wanted limitations on that carrying on they said they wanted it to be carrying on for two e status employment in the united states is by definition lawful because lack of permanent residence is defined as the ability to live and work in the united states until that status is taken away so but but i would agree that congress may not have felt the need to expressly say they have said you have to be caried you have to becoming to be a permanent resident in order to carry on the religious vocation and so  then separately that you have to still be authorised to it's redundant have that point you become a permanent resident so you are authorized to carry out on the right is the reference back then to the on refers to both support one supper two and some part three and so rather than integrate three separate times that the requirement would be to have been doing either ministerial work more professional work or vocational work for those two prior years congress just said carrying on such religious work reading out a minister must be coming to be a minister a professional must be coming to be a professional and other worker must be coming to me another worker for example or a pastor alan carr had two years as a pastor and wanted to come to a religious broadcaster as one of the examples in the regulations he would need two years as it we consider all of the traditional tools of construction and that's that's been applied in a fairly broad way that would certainly be our position your honor we would consider the existence of sections from forty five k and this contingencies that could break down at any one point that does not establish article three standing and given the fact that this individual would need to wait ten years on their departure united states you know get an immigrant visa anything can break down at circuit certainly has incorporated the arbitrate gracious standard under seven zero six eight two into the second part of the chevron analysis and i think that analysis given some hints from the supreme court recently is probably correct it's the same very lenient standard which is simply to be seen as decision making is reasonable doesn't need to be the best reading the satchel and the court can even disagree with it just simply needs to be very similar situation arose under the statute as we have here whether it's a condition in one part not mentioned in another and the agency was free to borrow the condition from an unrelated section of the statute  think their main point was that carrying on is not ambiguous will answer me is there any point because when confronted with any agency's allegation that we have an ambiguous statute the parties most often lose because the court  deference to the agency at second step so of course that recur to run step one that's the strongest part of the case but unfortunately i've been able to point to anything in the statute that shows that the term at issue is defined or that's resolving any settled manner whatsoever that would resolve the issue at step one and you're saying that that breeds ambiguity the fact that it doesn't have a settled meaning well i referred back to the earlier point i made just to be more clear if there's no subtle common meaning for example in the first publication case that i mentioned the supreme court said well under the national labor relations act for example it could be that the term employment has a common law meaning and under certain circumstances that me may be imposed on the agency but it did happen so happened in that case that they rejected the suburbs mean because of other indicators in the statute that it was expected to the agency would develop a changing definition that would address stacks and circumstances through the administration program about your colleague argument the fact that there is no definition in the regulations should in order to treatment but the inquiry under chevron is how the statute reads regulations