have grown to an epic proportion the wait list for pending cases now presently remains roughly one hundred three thousand cases there are mean waiting you visas for the failure of these eighty three or at least eighty thousand of these evey's this can be traced to the malfeasance or at worst sheer neglect of the executive branch of our government from two thousand to two thousand and eight and two thousand congress next to the victims of trafficking and families protection act two thousand this act provides for ten thousand you visas to be issued per year for victims of crimes this is indorsed by law enforcement agencies act provided assistance to want course an agency intercedes or substantial injury as a result the subject crime five years went by and nothing was done no regulations were passed a policy memorandum which issued by the then immigration and naturalization service in two thousand and one just identifying that he has now been passed to congress nothing was done in terms of the federal regulation nothing was done whatsoever moving forward with intent of congress being prohibited in two thousand and five congress enacted the violence against women act which grew out of the frustration of congress not being able to have the executive branch push forward their in the violence against women act a required hundred eighty days for regulations to be published these regulations are required to be published on july fourth two thousand and six again the executive branch ignored this in until october two thousand and seven when action hearing today briggs earth requested this court compel the h s to release the eighty thousand visas the when unused over the period of eight years the question below went toward standing in would it and whether mr taylor had standing in order to pursue his claim and whether he had a personal stake in the outcome mr taylor filed an application to freeview visa it's now been temporarily approved awaiting for a visa to be allocated to him where is he in mind you know won't i was able to go through some of the numbers because they're published and it looks like he's roughly around thirty thousand thirty five thousand in line they're still working on issuing the thirty five thousand are ahead of him or ahead of them and so there remains a rather lengthy line awaiting the final disposition of his case meanwhile here means at the whim of the executive branch they could lift his the first action on the case they can have any of these peoples to further action on the case and move forward with removal proceedings against any one of these people on the line when asking for redress when asking for the release of these eighty thousand number as this has been addressed them on a couple of occasional least by the district courts and the appellate courts and it diverse the ins in two thousand and two there was a diversity lottery applicants which is a little different but substantially same in seeking visas here in the united states in the context of diversity lottery is an applicant can go forward to seeking their lawful permanent resident status within that given year that difference and you visa contacts as opposed to the diversity context is that those people seeking diversity lotteries their applications are thrown to the side after that fiscal year as complete it and the dear case this court ruled that unfortunately after that year passed those people remain in eligible for their lawful permanent resident status in that case or one of those allocated numbers available to them in the u visa context as from this difference it differs in the fact that the application still remain awaiting for these fees and numbers in this case the visa numbers do exist there are eighty thousand numbers that exist and the number that would be available mr taylor if this court would allow them to go forward in that regard were all eighty thousand identified more that there were not there i mean that and she's had to be the quota for each year they don't have people who are identified as being eligible that's correct there seems to be this law and that's a waiting that's been temporarily approved awaiting thousand that's been temporarily approved so you need to have been temporarily approved under three that's been temporarily approach and what is the status of your client my client from estimation because he has approved about a year ago remains about thirty or thirty five fashioned a remedy that you seek directed the agency how did they get around the statutory cap it limits their authority it's been addressed previously in the context of asylum in this town context under the refugee act of one nine hundred eighty it provided ten thousand people per annum can secure their lawful permanent residency here and that's it those are people who've been granted refugee status or salad and it went in proceeded from one thousand eighty until two thousand and four when there's a law suit filed in minnesota and what happened was back then the department of homeland security and the immigration naturalization service failed to allocate twenty two thousand of those numbers during those years with precisely the same verbiage as the  allocating their numbers so the judge in that case called it a national outcry and what they did was they said find this twenty two thousand cases of twenty two thousand visas that failed to be allocated in those years where them prove provided to expanded the judge in that case allowed it to open up for at least the twenty two thousand that went unused during that period of time there were means that existence of of reach us in the at least in the bare minimum of opportunities i like to reserve my time space please the court my name is lauren bingham and i represent the government in this case the district court below was correct in dismissing appellants case and the government asks that that decision be upheld for the following reasons first because the appellant lacks standing specifically he fails all three prongs of the standing test first he has suffered no injury his you visa has not been denied instead he is placed on the waiting list in accordance with the regulations second that  injury is not traceable to the defendant to the defendants in this case the backlog is due to the huge increase in filings in the use of context not because of the delay issue in the regulations thirdly and most importantly in what the district court focused on below is that there is no redress ability of the his alleged injury and that's because of what your honor alluded to earlier which is that there is a clear ten thousand visas per year limit and there is no way to get around that finally as to support help even if he had standing he's failed to state a claim i want to talk about a few things that my colleague brought  up one it's not that these visas went on used it's that there's a limit on these pieces so there's no rollover mechanism to preserve these visas in the statute and congress used the word shall which is a very clear congressional in our brief the numbers have just gone up year over year with that regard to the addressability point my colleague has brought up the a dear case in that case this court held that were quested relief was and the failure to obtain a diversity visa within that fiscal year was was fatal to their claim and that was because there simply was no visa to issue after that fiscal year was over that is the same situation here in that there simply is no more than ten thousand visas per year to issue however the case is distinguishable because it is not fatal to mr taylor's claim in this case instead mr taylor remains on the waitlist he has deferred action he has employment authorization as does his wife was a derivative beneficiary and when his turn on the wait list comes up presuming nothing has changed in his eligibility he will receive a