the law or if the decision is arbitrary here the u s has chipped an immigration service that all three without authority it substituted its own jurisdictional determination over that of state courts it misapplied texas law by ignoring parts of the family code and impermissibly importing irrelevant bits and pieces from other state statutes and finally  acknowledges texas courts sitting in suits affecting the parent child relationship under title five of the texas family in cases where the child has reached the age of eighteen as juvenile courts in some cases but not in these cases don't have custody of them since they reject him i'm sorry you don't have anywhere had custody of these former juvenile center now over eighteen i believe two of them continue to reside with a parent and one to one resides within an older welfare payments they're not eligible for welfare payments they only receive child support under the court orders but they do receive child support even though they're not children yet they are children under the family code your honor and they are program leading to a secondary degree a high school is still in high school innocence or is disabled they still in the high school one has completed and so she is no longer a child and i asked was concerned about is not trying to figure out or not trying to redefine what the state court was doing but trying to figure out how it on the may have done it wrong but nonetheless that is their obligation and what i guess all three orders say even assuming without deciding that these three travis county orders that that court had the authority to issue the order affecting your rights as an adult as defined by state law whatever that means u s c i asked find insufficient evidence to clue that it was issued by juvenile court making care and custody terminations would you and all my best understanding how to make out a part of the statute is they are not sure it was a dependency declaration that would be relevant under the controlling authority they had operate on give me or what makes this a dependency declaration or does it not need to be appreciate the question your honor and not try to and pack it as concisely as i can but when a concise question should do the best i  effort already this morning to tell us why that's the case and that's what us c i s were asking for and we still have to decide whether you're right but that's what it seems to me they're asking for part two of my unpacking would be that that statement by us c i s is slightly consistent with what the statute itself requires the statute does not require a juvenile court to actually make both custody and care decisions it must have the authority to do so and if it does not make a custody decision as in these cases the child must be declared dependent on the court in accordance with state law governing dependency and as your honor rightly noted that term is not defined by by federal law the congress left that expressly to be defined under state law the texas family code does not define dependency or provide for any type of dependency proceed as we all well know when the term is on the find and in this respect we agree with the department of homeland security you look to the common usage of the work as they argued before the ninth circuit on this very same time a dependent child and that means needing support from someone else and under texas law under the family code when a court acting under title five a suit affecting the parent child relationship renders final orders that court acquires continuing exclusive jurisdiction over all of those apps or matters no other court has the authority to in any way alter amend so that child becomes dependent on the court to ensure the enforcement or any modification or combination of any and all orders contained in that final sabse record in the texas courts agree as reflected in the documents we have provided and sought to judicial notice for that that is how they understand dependency in in texas and once they have made that decision it is not to us about c i s to disturb it it is a matter entirely law we would also point out that a full review of the record would indicate and support our understanding of the basis of their denial not to include a declaration of dependency is th agency never questioned or doubted whether a declaration of dependency existed during the application process while it is true that you have c i s at its discretion can issue a request for additional evidence if there is a part of a petitioners application that they find want to eat or unclear or insufficient but once they exercise that discretion to issue a request for for evidence the opponents and none of those said we don't see that you've been declared dependent on the court explain to us how this order that you provide it constitutes a declaration of dependency they never question that  this record err by not considering parts of the record that were already before it but it's not it's nothing apparently that's in existence right you're saying they didn't they did make this proclamation that are this declaration of this district court in the district court never considered them or put in the record or never on the district court proceedings i don't believe so your honor i wasn't involved below but i don't believe that they  were with a not in there because somebody asked foreman it was determination not to or were they not in there because of no mission by whoever the proponent was who had the burden i don't mean to be invasive but i'm not entirely sure i don't recall seeing anything in the record below that would constitute a refusal to enter them into the room well my best guess is that it was never they were never presented to the court  errant cetera et cetera et cetera so it's part of the argument is err on the part of the district court because of its failure to take note of something that nobody put in the record so hard to get there less say if to say you should get relief on appeal because a decision was predicated on the absence of something but it's not put to us why that was abs i'm just not sure even thought you were right how you get relief i think i would answer this highlighting the fact that they never question it during the course of the administration proceed at a minimum i think that remains and is more for the court being able to consider parts of the record that was referred to but never presented to the board whether as it again i don't know you know that rests with the agency or the appellate counsel or the court itself but the purpose of the a p a is to ensure that the agency makes the right decision or doesn't do so in a way that is contrary to its own statute or other law and here it is contrary to texas law even if even if we i think further highlighting this case and the separation between the role of the stake hordes on the one and the role of the federal agency on the other shows in a way and that's not typically present in most types of immigration proceedings where the congress has expressly relied on the various states and they're just records for their expertise and their inherent authority to determine otter whether reunification with the parent is viable or in the letter returned to the child's country of origin is in the best interests of the time all of those decisions sound and family law and u s c i asked has no authority to cases both of the children have reached the age of eighteen when the final zaps orders were issued those orders contained conservatorship and child support orders for u s c i s nonetheless denied initially denied the to do so they must necessarily acknowledge that it's tax a state court said in pursuit of the family meet the federal definition of a juvenile court and that should that should apply the jurisdiction holds well of what a declaration of dependency would look to only custody we can understand there is such a thing as a freestanding declaration of dependency on texas law that one of these travis county judges one of the plaintiffs was placed in a conservative to ship that's on page one thirty seven of an individual that individual has custody of the ending of that child so that's what it looks like none of these court orders have  bring a declaration pinda see is not a dependency upon the court it isn't pinchy it is like a custody determination of divinity upon some other individual the that's right or organisation need to be in custody it's not enough to just sprinkle some language oh they're dependent on the court and nothing more you need something like on one page one thirty seven when the individual is set up as a man conservative or somebody you have to be placed in somebodies custody in the vidual or an organisation it is not state courts just as a general matter have been to help plaintiffs they've been just sprinkling the language from the i am a and that's not that doesn't automatically have the agency classify them is that the ho i'm sorry i was sprinkling of the language in our case i suppose language dependency was not in the court well it does raise not here there's no sprinkling here some of the evidence they want you to take notice of iran has that depend the pendency but it's it's not before this court because it wasn't before judge sparks which usually is is a plausible dictation how do we what's your best evidence for us of what this federal regulations are you just saying that the that it necessarily is relying on state law we're going to get some meaning of the federal language and just how do you bridge this undefined language and what applies to  s c i s and make it link up with the state law what you have it is a case law or interpretive principle that allows us to do what you just told us is the right thing to do well i think the way the agency looks at these orders is it shouldn't link up with this the wall because the order should stand by itself the state or shouldn't be in order to get an immigration benefit and individual goes to the state that to remedy that situation not to set up a situation where they now can go and get some kind of immigration classification and that's what we have in these cases is you really don't have any kind of dependency you don't have you have twenty two year olds twenty four year olds trying to come out under the special immigrant juvenile statute the purpose of the state actions are almost purpose they want to come get a immigration minute not to get is not a basis on a federal law to discount the order if it was not made it was made for immigration purposes and not for the actual purposes under state law for that was one reason to ignore the state court order and i haven't seen that argument in your briefing that this is a sham order of some sort i do not and again your honor i'm not saying this is child support and that's what it is that that's the purpose of that order is to provide child support for these adult children and  or some other origination in and of itself isn't done satisfy the decoration of dependency and without their legacy was without your stick i mean they weren't entitled t right that's right it was hard to it's fine this is adult child an adult child isn't that sort of an oxymoron and then how long does this go on if there is a declaration of cost of dependency special right but you said adult child is the words i use maybe i should have used that terminology and i apologize but in this case when they were all over eighteen when they started this process  the pendency or custody in this case and that is really the key i think if if there were over eighteen and there was a will a declaration of dependency or if they had a special needs the same disability situation i think we might have a different ways but we don't have that  talking about that if someone had some intellectual challenge i'm not talking about that i'm talking about it how does a declaration of custody our declaration of independence say not not whether physical or mental disability how does that keep this adult child within the system and how long are they in the system i mean can you have a thirty five year old who has declared who is issued a declaration of dependency well no because you  looking at the definition section want to one of the i n a the special immigrant is somebody who has been declared dependent on a juvenile court located in the united states  argument by the other side is least import and she can correct me on rebuttal from wrong is that this juvenile court and it is a juvenile court in travis county three different was i'm not quite sure what i mean different  had jurisdiction over these individuals went at the time of the orders because even though they were over eighteen they're not yet gotten their secondary education and part of the state statutes in texas allows this kind of ruling for was a juvenile court all three of the in and the statute didn't talk about a declaration of dependency on a sibling or on somebody else's says they declared dependent on a juvenile court not by a juvenile court on a juvenile court i don't know what i mean and but it's a general statute of applicable to fifty states and what i'm trying to understand from the argument is why are you correct in linking i don't mean link in the is an immigration decision per say by travis county but how do you link this language to state statutory language to know what when a state has declared a juvenile court and the state declared somebody dependent on that court i'm counting to forcefulness trying to be clear what i'm asking done statute i mean does say so what you make of this after saying being declared dependent on a juvenile court when you're trying to no definition declaration of the pen's even texas texas law that agency but it doesn't you know it's not enough to just sprinkle the word dependency on naive good to go i mean you the language on  face and they have not shown that that's an error i showed that you have to be put in somebodies custody whether it's an organization whether it's in the make sense otherwise federal language the language of the  talks about depend a declaration of dependency determination of dependency or that on its on its face you have to be put into somebodies custody they have not shown it's not enough just to sprinkle the language again your honor i  would also say that i believe that these individuals graduated from high school at the time they filed which would mean the operative thing is again if they gained a status properly they would still have that status wouldn't want their special immigrants under their status  the fact they don't age out of that's tested that's correct they would have that classification you honor it with a lot and to get a green card right so if they got it properly whatever age they were the fact of twenty years later will matter they which something else would have to change that status yeah usually they would become green card holders l p r a lawful permanent residence and then they would become citizens from there so twenty years later they're s citizens at theoretically taking your theoretically yes they wouldn't have that classification for long i'm saying is the fact they're no longer eighteen or nineteen or twenty inches high school doesn't affect that if they were properly declared this at  didn't make the record so you don't get relief not you personally saying an error was made in the determination glow predicated on the absence of something that the proponents of it never put forward requests for after the evidence are in the record and provide as part of the record that serves i can give you page numbers at sixteen point five one four four nine point four four one through four two about and there are all three seem to have the same water maybe talk about a different order if the same want to read to you before in the last line of think of the signature of next page we don't see that this was an order issued by juvenile court making care and custody have the opportunity to correct the language of the federal statute the one that you're on her side at eight u s c eleven zero one eight twenty seven jane a little odd says that one of the eligibility requirements is a child who has been declared dependent on a juvenile court located in the united states or whom such a court has legally committed to or placed under the custody so by the pla express language of the statute dependency is not the same as custody if it were if it is then that first clause of the of the statute becomes surplusage will except if she is as committed to a place in support beam and in that way there's a declaration without the word being present i am dependent on the travis county district court whatever it is giving me an order on child support that just mean yes in the most briefest of responses i would point out that the regulations specifically say that whatever this declaration of dependency is is to be determined state by state based on the state's law so the question is not what your c i s thinks that a declaration of the pendency is the question is what does a texas court think that or what does texas law say and what of dependency is and there is no such animal under the texas family so where so we look to the common usage of the work and there can be no question that what support enters its final orders it acquires the jurisdiction that child becomes dependent whether it is to enforce access and possession orders or child custody orders or any of the terms of the saps or that were in or by the final or in eighteen seconds i have left i'd like to address judge clement's question about when do these orders terminate these i'm sorry hon whatever never graduate from law is there no longer a golden pursuing the degree they're no longer a child either so even if they want to take a semester off for example then they lose their status a