the fairly simple issue before this court is whether the found he will withdraw notice of a visa petition with the quote immigrant visa branch of the us embassy effects an automatic revocation the same and the equally simple answer is it does not  regulations provide that upon a written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner so petitioner with any officer of the service who is authorized to grab her deny petitions the petition will be automatically revoked there's no question that whoever the immigrant visa branch is it is not an officer of the service at all it's not even in the service much less being and it's not in the department of homeland security either much less beings having authority to approve peace a position this filing requirement would that be satisfied by mailing something to the appropriate district director or whoever of the immigration service it would be satisfied by mailing it to anyone who had the authority to approve immigrant visa petitions and that what i believe include district directors  they did send it to a service office but they just sent it the wrong one now the district court relied upon our vs robins to say that we should defer to the agency's interpretation that would be an excellent argument whether in agency interpretation to to but there is not the government was unable throughout the entire proceedings below to point to anything whatsoever from the u s c i s that said that it is their policy to treat revocation sent you your isp petition is having a fight with his brother you do want to sponsor many more the immigrant visa the the closest they came to showing anything which remotely appeared like a policy of interpret ing this regulation to to include service upon anybody other than a service officer was this like conic statement from some somebody not even somebody in the region at the net rescue service center says well sometimes people send these papers to embassies let's only say that sometimes people send these papers to embassies he didn't even say that when people send these papers to embassies we treat that as a valid revocation he says sometimes he will do that so there's  absolutely no evidence whatsoever that there even is a policy for is as far as we can tell swears like there need isn't the question just whether what they did in this particular case was arbitrary and capricious your honor there's they're relying upon the got district court one upon error or versus robinson say that this is a proper interpretation the regulations and or versus robinson supreme court said we will defer to that age and that's what this before did i'm asking isn't the proper question simply whether what was done in this particular case of mr kumar was arbitrary and capricious or not i would say is whether it's in courts of the law and it's certainly not in korn's with the regulation your iron regulations or our law thank you reserve some time not maybe is whether he raised it or didn't raise it i'm not sure i find that terribly compelling but the problem is it's a petitioner is seeking a benefit from the agency and sends it to the wrong address to the wrong question of the u s c i s is mr kumar's counsel wrong that you don't honor that he is wrong in this and sends it to the wrong office you say no sorry you sent it to the wrong office but if somebody has properly filed one and then tries to withdraw it then you'll give it a fact no send their they're in short yes there are different regulations and policies that apply to those situations the m court case was an application for an h one b visa it involves putting forward evidence in a number of forms in this case the with effecting an automatic withdrawal is very easy and there are state department regulations that that appellant ignores at twenty two c f r forty two point four three a which  never addresses which indicates that when the state department a consulate or the national visa center receives a request indicating that someone is no longer entitle to a benefit such as because they don't want it anymore action that the worst thing that plaintiff misstated here was plaintiff indicated that us yet that us state department had done the withdrawal that's just factually incorrect state department issue memorandum which isn't which is in a certified administrative record at record page three where the first box is checked that indicates petitioner has withdrawn the petition it's the first box on a list of he understood what he was doing and he made the request expecting that it would go to an official who could act up act upon it and that's what happened in this case appellant himself should be judicially a stopped from taking a contrary position under oath so this was clear so and this is significant because the regulation pertaining to rejection of documents were checked requests for benefits and the court low was under the impression that withdrawing something was not a request for benefits but it's but  it's means it benefits the but if i want point use as benefit request means any application petition motion appeal or other request relating to an immigration or naturalization benefit so withdrawing something is certainly a request and it certainly pertains to an immigration naturalization benefit more perplexed by amcor than i am by this it seems to me that it's remarkable that the agency would take a position that if somebody sends something in they just send it to the wrong place and it eventually gets to the right place that it should be disregarded by the officer when it clearly was intended to seek whatever because rejections are generally not published but the a o does publish its rejections and they are every time you send a so no to the notice of appeal to the wrong agency they reject miss reserve decision and will turn