seek an education of his due to titian that he found the united states just and chip in immigration services almost three years ago from us no your honor at this stage we are seeking review of whether it was appropriate for the district court to dismiss the claim for failure to state a claim how the district court erred because appellant properly stated a claim for relief under the e p a and then to be in the statue in this circumstance opponent was a victim of a violent assault in august of two thousand and fourteen when he was stabbed in the leg and in his back congress established a u v set to provide legal status to victims of specific crimes and to provide protection to those victims of congress also created a cap on the number of the says to ten thousand each year because of this the u s cia asked to shoot federal regulations that created to duty for them to place all eligible applicants on the waiting list of a visa is not available placement on the waiting list occurs after u s c i s determines an applicant is eligible for the visa but cannot receive one soley due to the cat courts in this jurisdiction a found that relief under the mandamus statute and the a p a are essentially the same when a plaintive seeks to compel an agency to add on the nondiscretionary duty what constitutes one reasonable delay in the immigration context depends to a great extent on the facts of our particular case while details factual allegations are not required in the pleading appellant alleged detailed facts in his complaint that demonstrate why the delay isn't reasonable appellant allege that he was a victim of a violent crime that he suffered physical and mental harm and that he's a member of an extremely vulnerable population he also alleged that he had waited nearly three years without work authorization or any protection from deportation but that what makes that what makes him unique than actually saying that all the backlog is the on reasonable delay what makes it unique about this individual plain as well in this instance appellant has shown this court that other applicants have been adjudicated after his petition was filed so the argument by the op believes that he has to wait in line for his petition to be adjudicated the mere fact that but some cases are more complicated than others so maybe more information why isn't that presumably but that apple has argument here your honor is that all applications are adjudicate in the order that immigration receives the published processing times does not render the still a reasonable off the fact that u s c i asked has taken this long to educate his petition when they delayed processing regulations for the visa in the first instance for a period of eight frustration dandies patience with this process i also know that we do have an immigration system that was underfunded and understaffed in terms of the mandates that they receive from congress and it's hard to see how the system would work any better of this u v s of waiting list process stated a claim for release of concern yes but your concern your honor is and you know that the question for the court is whether it's reasonable or not to make victims of crimes wait for a long period of time whether th more than others in other instances other applications these these these types of claims trying to get more funds and staffing for used you visa applications in particular perhaps as a result of this court's ruling that the delay unreasonable that is exactly what that police will do however that's not what a colony is asking this court to determine upon is asking this court to determine that making a victim of a crime such as this week for over three years for adjudication of his sure your honor there is a statute from two thousand passed by congress u s c fifteen seventy one courts in this jurisdiction have said that this is can be a standard for reasonable processing time informed by the sense of congress expressed in that law that the processing of an immigration benefit application should not be completed any later than one hundred eighty days at the end after the initial filing of an application should not should be completed no later ye that's a fact specific inquiry which is why you know this case in particular should be remanded to the district court for further fact time you know those specific issues as as stated earlier there is no even if this court were to find that appellant's weight is unreasonable he would not move ahead of the line in front of any other applicants because his determination of prioritization on the week lest he would never receive his head of anyone else who  his petition immediately or to adjudicate his petition in a certain amount of time secondly the district court correctly dismissed his a p claim because the agency has not failed to take any action that it was required to take and any delay should be a fact specific inquiry but they have totally failed to allege any facts that make him unique or different than anyone else and his position like your honour's mentioned he is a victim of crime but so is everyone else that is applying for visa and because u s p s publishes processing times on their website that is available to the public it is easy to discern that his application has been pending within the same amount of time as filed earlier in time than his petition so that would be consistent with us c i s as general duty to adjudicate these in the order that they are received second of all obviously these are exact and so i can't discern the circumstances behind any of these cases and even if i was able to i would example if someone is in removal proceedings or if they are detained at government expense ice can request an expedite on so that may or may not be the circumstance in one of those filings and furthermore just because you are serious has a general duty to adjudicate these in the order that they are received that does not necessarily mean that the that they will be placed on the waiting list in that exact order because of course some adjudications may be more complex than at what point should the court say look enough you've got there well i think under mandamus that a plaintiff would have to allege that essentially there was no education you know so for example if they allege that so describe circumstances that you think would amount to a reasonable two way i think that it would be an unreasonable delay if he was situated differently than others who filed at the same period  time so if for example his the processing deadlines right now are august twenty fifth twenty fourteen so as of this weekend i checked before the argument more than three years yes that's correct so if  application had been filed earlier in time in this public processing times i think he could make that make an allegation that of an unreasonable delay because he is he would in that case be situated differently than other people who have filed at the same time  as long as the similarly situated applicants are all being delayed to the same extent even if it's a decade or more longer they wouldn't be available or a p relief wouldn't be available to them well i think the delay wouldn't be unreasonable because here we have a situation where us serious has put forward a reasonable framework for adjudicating these applications first of all there's the simple fact that congress has limited these visas to ten thousand per year and there's no way that us us can get around that  second of all we have the fact that these huge increasing numbers are are being filed every year just skyrocketing numbers and so it's and third of all like you said he is similarly situated to other applicants people who are who filed earlier in time and him and perhaps create different results across the country like you were alluding to if just reports are finding unreasonable delays two years here seven years here ten years here exciter why wouldn't  point seemed to point you know the direction but that would be a better that would offer a more hope for systemic improvement right in not not doing one mandamus for one application of time but t to bring a broader e p a challenge to say the immigration authorities are unreasonably to weigh the processing of you visa waiting list again your honor that's that's not the case we have here on but i don't think it would change the simple fact that u fact that one u s c i s has allocated additional resources trying to trying to alleviate the backlog and it's sort of like a traffic jam situation those in the front are starting to move but of course the delay has gotten even bigger and those in education one person could have perhaps received another immigration benefit in the time of their application was pending adjusted through another means one they could also have perhaps a committed a crime that would render them inadmissible and maybe require a waiver or at least additional information to see if the waiver was available on that new ground it could be that the law enforcement sort of occasion was disavowed that is an option that law enforcement have and for example the person proceedings and they have their pending you visa application you know if ice is not that cooperative would an injunction be appropriate could it be appropriate to say you know you really need to move on that's if that works that's great but what if in the meantime he's put in removal or see if he is put in removal proceedings and ice would have the option to request an expedite if that was appropriate would it district court i don't believe so your honor the reason th ice has this ability to expedite it is really a question of government resources it's obviously very resource intensive to put someone so put someone in removal proceedings and come around to that removal decision and even remove them so this is a way for the government to conserve resources if the person was to be placed in removal proceedings but again i'd like to emphasize there's no allegation in this case that that that is happening more imminent any further questions  is i just want to dress up a couple points that were raised by your owners and the police argue that the first issue is what is the law of it right so i think it's important for the court to understand that from april of two thousand and fifteen until present time u s a s only moved processing times from applications filed the name of two thousand and fourteen to applications filed in august to force two thousand and fourteen so that's a two and a half year period of time for us i ask only process three months worth of appendix are actually cases of appellate counsel myself and so i can tell your honour's that there was no extenuating circumstances such that a police counsel suggested where a case was expedited or any other factors existed