the district court erred in holding that plaintiffs in this case cannot see court intervention to fix a badly broken system for determining who receives waivers of the english and civics tests for naturalization the district court's st and perhaps clearest error was holding that the organizational plaintiffs did not have zone of interest standing the supreme court has been clear that the zone of interest test is not especially demanding in fact the supreme court has always stressed that the interests sought to be right to review if the plaintiffs interests are so marginally related to or inconsistent with the purposes implicit in the statute that it cannot reasonably be assumed that congress intended to permit the suit that's for seventy nine advocacy organizations have zone of interest and to challenge statutory and constitutional violations and provision of benefits under the immigration and nationality act would any law firm that has a major immigration practice meet the zone of interest test well any organization whose purpose is to help individuals receive the benefits of the act is clearly within the zone of interest that the immigration and nationality act is full of provisions that bring such organizations into this very scheme of the statute which is something that the th circuit stressed in east and the organizational plaintiff here you've ministries for peace and justice is an organization that assists people with the naturalization process i'm sorry but do i understand your answer to judge carney's question is yes work any i'm not necessarily a private law firm that it was a law firm is an organization that does proponent work that they're required to honor bound ethically bound to do it thank you represent people who can't afford services and immigration and tax issues all sorts of things well certainly and they might but here we have in order to prove too much well but it doesn't necessarily prove too much because organizations i don't want to have a lot of them representing a client and i'm having difficulty winning would be nice as a law firm which i think is the implicit underlying implicit question to well to to challenge the system under which i am not prevailing with some like client well indeed but as i said to judge carney the this statute specifically incorporates the notion that community organizations and not for profit organizations are going to be entered to the provision of benefits through that statute well that clients i'm not winning i mean this this isn't a law for a right this is this is a community organization with a department of justice accredited lay representative but as honor and and you know quite clearly if we look at the supreme court case law haven's if we look at the case law of this circuit whether it's the central de la come when he died case for the versus easier and sometimes it's harder sometimes clients have bigger problems than other times but that's that's still your mission well indeed and are you not being diverted from your mission you're performing your mission which is an admirable what your honor seems to be suggesting is that there's some some validity to defendant's notion that you have to that diversion has to be away from the core mission but that's simply not what the case law says there was no diversion in haven's from the core mission of the housing organization there was no diversion from the core mission in central dilla community dod the core mission was to organize workers they were still organizing the and the town didn't want a lot of aliens congregating in their park so they would dispersing them by a lot dealing with with solicitation from from automobiles and trucks sure but def and therefore and therefore they they were they were engaged in the same mission either way and in the hypothetical you put to me a moment ago the question was well if it's just harder to engage in the core mission where's the diversion and the answer it is provided in central and it's the same as it is here the diversion is they're able to do less of the core mission because it's taking them longer because the government is violating the law and that's the  establishes a storefront pro bono group to help people do their taxes which of course is actually very helpful from an immigration point of view and the tax laws are very complicated they're really complicated and it's hard to comply with this that it's hard to get all the documents together and if the tax laws were simplified that group could perform its mission with a lot less wet share your honor but that's different that well it's different because here there's a violation of the law that's being challenged the fact that the tax law is complicated may be regrettable but it's not a violation of law but the problem here is the government is making it more difficult when you're using the merits and i'm arguing article three standing and that is to say would with the with the storefront proponent tax clinic have standing to send the tax law so complicated merits well this would make a difference that this statute specifically and explicitly contemplates the participation of pro bono organizations supporting ilian applications in a way that the tax law maybe doesn't it absolutely  fundamental it's much much much more fundamental but of course the district court found article three stand i know that it's all the law that's why i'm a lot of hate when you're on appeal well the fact is the government didn't appeal that but absolutely article three standing here and what this court said in n y c o u is that only a perceptible impairment of an organization's activities is necessary for there to be injury in fact i mean that's the law in the circuit did you have a question exactly right i mean under the mcnairy decision and under the cases following mcnairy in this circuit up to look in malik there is a cause of action for a pattern and practice claims against ins and it doesn't require exhaust you can't exhaust remedies through the immigration act to challenge a pattern in practice and of course why in p j can't because they don't have a denied application we're not seeking review of the denied application we're seeking to challenge the pattern in practice of failing to comply with the congressional mandate that these waivers be provided and that under mcnairy under c s s versus reno under a malak in this court is permitted without any resort to administrative remedies is there anything that prevents the district court on appeal after exhaustion from addressing is specifically the appeal of the determination to deny naturalization and at that point because it to denote a review it doesn't matter whether it was a bad process below it doesn't matter if notices were properly provided seventy six that they reviewing court can decide all relevant questions of law and interpret constitution statutory provisions but that doesn't kind of open well in the district court could under general federal question jurisdiction but that's the same reason why we can now because under general federal court touristic federal question jurisdiction these pattern and practices can be challenging that's exactly what the supreme court held in mcnairy what more would you have to do to exhaust a mystery ronnie's to take this issue off the well st well st of all the individuals would have to go to two interviews and be denied then there'd be an administrative appeal that that would have to be denied and then they could go to district court on the review why in p j of course can't pursue that course but when they got to district court on the nova review the district court could what's to stop the individual plans from doing that i mean your argument seems to be do you see no point in it and it's not legally required which your stand nothing is to stop them from doing that i do think that it's possible the district court would not entertain the kind of discovery that would be needed to approve the pattern and practice because the district court would say that the issues are narrower than that but of course we don't know but what we do know is that it isn't required because this is a pattern practice challenge and there were more individual plaintiffs when the suit was originally filed yes that's right and there were about ten more there were there were nine altogether so the result of in more and then they dropped out they didn't drop out they became citizens they became citizens big because i don't see how they can you know i mean well you're saying that the system is flawed and yet seven out of the nine plaintiffs are now citizens of the united states congratulations to them but that doesn't mean that the system is broken does it well of course that goes to the merits not to whether we stay to claim and their honor but but the fact is those seven had to sue they didn't just become citizens they sued and after these sued the government looked at their cases again and realized error and so it really proves the merits of our case your honor so they became through some route other than the one prescribed in the law that you were attacking your honor that they came to special attention of the u s attorney's office and their client then look carefully at those cases  and then got it a judgment would have to comply with that judgment across the board certainly that would be one way there's nothing that prohibits them in the image of a p r process from claiming that it was unconscious it was denied because the reviewing officer ignored the medical evidence and upon for the remainder to review you should look at it again and change it in fact and to clarify what happened with the other seven these seven plaintiffs who are no longer here on appeal  as we always do in the process of litigation the parties discuss it bear in mind that i think with one exception none of them have actually followed the loan was it was a special arrangement it was not a special in so much as they didn't take advantage of the mention of process but in issues that are being raised in this case certainly would be subject to whatever limitations of proportionality in rule twenty six no there is no express that read limit and objections correct so organizational standing is certainly yeah i'm concerned about that that you've challenged article three standing the district court found the organization had article three standing and the statute does seem in several different provisions to contemplate a rule for pro bono organizations such as that represented by your adversary here and we've found in several circumstances that it's really up a relatively  burden a light burden to carry to show that mission's core focus when it's aligned with the statute need we can suffer and injury by having a diversion of resources such as is alleged here so i of resources i think it makes a difference whether the statute that is at issue contemplates the participation of individual organizations otherwise it's the law firm problem and become naturalized what the requirements are what the waivers are there's also other provisions as yours are aware asylum removal special visas etc so with respect to naturalization there  start there and then we come to zone of interest is the statute contemplate the participation of the organization in this why does it mean that minimal burden but st i thought she would come contesting whether the organization had any could  standing at that that's when judge you know i was interested i might have diverted the questioning to that but but it's that following up on judge parker now i thought i thought we'd look at the statute as a whole and not look at individual provisions to determine whether the out of murky between the two just to focus directly to what would be alleged what is the allegedly version of resources the allegedly version of resources by why in p j is the presence of a dea agent a a credit a representative at the interviews for applicants who need waivers the very applicants who as alleged have some medical or disability that actually prohibit inhibits them from understanding english entirely or being able to learn civics in order to pass the test and your there's no allegation here actually that somehow why impeach is represented would not need to spend any more time on those who need waivers for says those who don't in fact it's inherent in the nature of the clientele that is served that it's going to take more b because the the agency will not accept a doctor's note that somebody cannot learn english and cannot learn the specifics necessary to pass the test that that that that that appeal and and as you've identified go to a district court and maybe go through discovery there so i'm not sure that's a diversion of resources but that's an expenditure of resources is it not but in some sense it's this winter of resources that's there no matter what the policy because the whole reason for every question for example is that we understand that no agency will be perfect there will be mistakes made that's why there's an appeal process so unless the contention you honor is that any conceivable or any conceivable of inefficiency is somehow confer standing on the rd party the organizational point of which it seems very hard to draw the line where it is now essentially what we understand the is that they think the process could be better but a desire to make the process better for them better for the clients is not in and of itself sufficient a concern to confer standing particularly when the process that they are proposing individuals to appear in person and naturalization interviews in order to learn whether their waiver requests are denied is a failure to accommodate could nice simple way you are this was not an addressed in the briefing aspect of the program from a systemic point of view and that's part of what we're trying to address is how systemic issues such as that can be raised the regulations will require that they be given warning ahead of time to the will be them and provide the decision when possible i will point out again it's beyond the scope of this record there have been some changes to the policies and procedures since this case was filed some which may or may not address those concerns of those a the regulations promulgated pursuant to the rehabilitation act provide a remedial scheme by which they can file a complaint will be a final agency decision after an investigation and then they can bring a suit after exhaustive when you say they you mean the individual plaintiffs  is not precluded from filing a complaint in one million of federal court who what where the regulations they were promulgated pursuant to the really rehabilitation act to provide for a complaint to the officer of civil rights for the department of homeland security alleging failures to accommodate which could range from a simple as a raft missing us out of a building up to some something the procedures and are using an individual could do that through an organization or are you saying that an organization itself specific with respect to the diversion of resources resources that the the representative who works on these cases spends twice as much time cases were involving in six  eight waiver requests as others and as we've already said that really to be expected i mean you're dealing with i mean the ordinary thing is somebody would take the exam somebody would learn english or take an english exam they're seeking  waiver involves medical application why what what what would be a what's the what's the basis for a claim when organizations should spend as much time on an extraordinary case no more time on an extraordinary case and bans on the ordinary run of the problem is what makes these cases extraordinary and it's not just that they need the waiver it's that the waivers are repeatedly denied and denied improperly and that's part of what's causing the extra time expenditure your clients are are losing your clients are losing right and they're losing even though they've submitted waiver applications that are facially absolutely perfect thankfully perfect basically that's the only thing that is that good enough in other candid there are plenty of doctors out there who would certify that i have a broken leg and there are plenty of doctors who will certify to just about anything if they think it's appropriate to do that so you're saying i making these decisions and all of that could be improved if the agency wished to and it should be improved because congress intends these waivers to be provided in the agency deal with this by by by rule making isn't it the regulations are on their face fine but the problem is there's a systemic failure to follow the regulations and to start your own thank you thank you very much i will take the matter under advisement the next case on