robert i guess your honor you may  proceed please the court good morning i'm james roberts attorney for the petitioner solomon northup this case is about whether the government complied with their statutory regulatory obligations when they refused to recognize that mr nor automatically became an as when his mother was granted asylum by the immigration court and i'm sorry i didn't invent the answer to this question rest purely in matters of law and how to interpret t steps that women as aliens status is terminated and under the section then the service shall initiate removal proceedings as appropriate so the only real issue before the court today is determine whether to wait point are talking through these regulations that the u s c i s office terminated the original asylum application i mean doesn't that it's essentially make the government's point of that asylum application was terminated and the rights they're under were extinguished then we have a new case now being pursued in the immigration court and that new case necessarily requires consideration of new facts and one of the one of the fundamental misunderstandings that i believe was was the problem through throughout the present what is it what does it mean i'm sorry what does it mean to terminate the asylum what do you think that means in terms of the consequence for the for the subsequent proceedings in the immigration court well there are lots of things that i think about that question your honor the st has to do with what i was talking about with to wait point twenty eight i think should have been referred it is not a new application because at the end of the jurisdiction asylum was not granted the fact that it was granted as an intermediate st only only confuses the issue regarding the then i'm not sure what you mean the is granted as an intermediate step and either was granted or not and the government says it was granted at that initial step and then subsequently terminated because of the allegations regarding fraud which the immigration judge to his credit he's engaged with and determine that your client was not at fault but the fact of the matter remains that that initial application was granted this all indication was granted it was terminated and from the government's perspective we're now dealing with a new claim and the sad fact that your client is now an adult no longer a minor and therefore no longer entitled to regulation they're both initial steps under the regulation because what else would have had to have occurred in order to make that final in your view the loss of jurisdiction it becomes final upon the laws of fourteen states it's the initial authority sorry mr roberts let me make sure i understand but but asylum is always i guess contingent it's never permanent i don't think you can always you can lose the benefit of asylum either because of changing conditions in your home and with regard to the petitioner so in that sense i guess you're right that it's never final but i don't know that it answers the question as to the fact that the u s c i s terminated that the terminations of asylum and then the new case began anew in the immigration court and i'm still struggling to understand why the new case doesn't now require consideration of the facts because i do not believe it is a new case i think arguments that this is a new application is a circular argument they're saying it's a new application because it's not re d because it's not referred then they say he's not protected by the child status protection act because he's over twenty one and he needs his own application and our opinion this is case was referred by an active regulation it's not a new application the regulations in fact allow an application to be mended and supplemented the immigration judge having jurisdiction  new application again the reason that i say that it's not a new application is as it is referred when an application is referred but thank you where in the record is the evidence that or the finding or whatever it is that document the says this case has been referred from us c i s to the immigration court where is that in the record opposite that there was it makes it clear that there is no referral package and you get but this is a circular argument that that i was referring to there saying that this is not a referral because there is no referral package but this is the the way that i see it is that it's a very simple issue the applicant the mother of the respondents applied for assignment once she applied for asylum it became the authority of the assign  when she presented that case we know that she discussed the issues that were at bar at the at the at the sign of office regarding the fraud because she would have been disqualified cylon if there had been fraud is down by the judge so she did confront all of these issues she confronted everything that was about that original application she confronted the issues of fraud that were related to the original application it was the original application that was being cited of course the the as i understand your argument that the the i and it does not permit a final denial  so again i wanted to look at twenty eight point one four one more time and then we can see from this section that the asylum office has four options unlike the two that immigration where it happens the options that the regulations are to grant to deny dismiss or refer as long as the cases in their custody they're tasked with to zing among these four options among these options we know it was not approved we know she was not the asylum approval before terminations was initiated in their jurisdiction and that's why i call it an intermediate step because they have the initial jurisdiction over the claim they have the initial jurisdiction over the claim so during that initial jurisdiction period it doesn't matter that it was approved denied approved denied they can do whatever they want during the during the time that they have jurisdiction at the end of their jurisdiction d we know the day that she was not to prove therefore they continue to have the obligation to the nines is necessary for the asylum application remains and the hands of the assignable has through the time of the approval since the approval was not the final option to the to the to the assignment office this would have been the same if he were terminated for any of the other reasons that determination exists terminations reasons for terminations are included and t whether it's terminated for fraud whether it's terminated for criminal reasons whether it's terminated for a change of circumstances it doesn't change the fact that when that term a nation happens venn the her continuing attention when the asylum office years later came information that seemed to call that approval into question they still had jurisdiction over the case they never lost jurisdiction over the case because they continued to have jurisdiction during this topsy turvy period of approval and it doesn't matter that the approval came that the terminations thing what matters is the end of their jurisdiction bay did not approve a sign ok good morning your honour's may please the court i'm all perkins on behalf of the attorney general the petitioner was deported earlier this year after the department of homeland security terminated his derivative side  that us after you can see did remove ability and after he submitted and then withdrew his own asylum application edition or now i ask this court to find his removal proceedings should be terminated because even though he is now an adult he is nonetheless eligible for for derivative decidedly status reserved only for children through his mother's newly granted asylum application but this is the same argument that the immigration court and the board of immigration appeals are the rejected and that this court already determined did not warrant a state approval be got the petition or urges interpretation of the political regulations or contrary to a plain reading in the board's implementation of those regulations was not manifestly contrary to application to an immigration judge to perform a de novo review according to a plain reading of these regulations the answer is no the regulations provide two separate processes a process for the initial adjudication of an application and then a and what we see and be st will st we see two separate tracks and in the we see that in asylum officer can grants an asylum application and see we see that if an asylum application is not granted after once an application is terminated that the application essentially becomes non adjudicated again essentially goes back in time to when the application was initially filed before it improved before it was then terminated but there is nothing the question of your colleague on the other side about the authority of the d h s that actually terminated applications can you respond to that i mean it seems clear on the face of the regulations but there may be an inconsistency here with the statute can you address that right so i'll begin with the petitioner has not raised this issue to raise this issue below the immigration judge to the board of immigration appeals has not raised this issue now to this court has fact conceded that the rd circuit have held that an immigration judge doesn't have jurisdiction to review a terminations decision the board of immigration appeals a matter of days jay has held the same thing and i know this this issue has been briefed and then i started before and so the j and when they changed the law in two thousand and five they made it very clear that they take the d o j can grant and terminate but it's deceptively spared in terms of the h s only grant you have no authority go back about because only the attorney general can do that or we can even as a core as a remedy and that's why we did not give d h as offices prefects the right to terminate she had a chance to have a due process hearing on the issue of four before article one general is congress laid out she prevailed there was no fraud no proof of mission for her asylum never ending because probably not very good reason to say look there well so a couple points in response your honor i do understand what you're saying but what i will say is that the grant of asylum inherent within the departments within the regulations and with then we would argue the statute bicester in nature because it gives the department the authority to deny it to dismiss to prove there is argument that the chief is has laid out is that the stats you doesn't permit the regulation and i guess the question of god and have it all through is where the regulation is avenue for challenging regulations there's been no such challenge to the regulation it can we then invalidate adson argument here the the regulation that permits termination you can burden those things like that or once you do grant it is a property interest is an absolute no is not absolute but when it comes to terminating its congress it only under fourteen see when an application is referring the immigration judge has jurisdiction to adjudicate that application and the reason is we can see in the language itself that upon referral so an application is in removal proceedings who wants to see a sign at that point they would file an asylum application with the immigration judge and the reason that's significant is as we've talked about many times in the past you know eighteen minutes or so  has conceded that the immigration judge does not have to or a station to review terminations decision so under the petitioners reading the regulation what we have is after v h s approves an application and then terminates the granted asylum it refers to an immigration judge you have the immigration judge does not have jurisdiction to review the terminations decision which in this instance it was a determination that the application should have never been granted to begin with because it contained fraud so there is no jurisdiction to review determination decision but there is jurisdiction according to the dishwasher to review to form a day no review of the underlying application so the problem with petitioners argument is that those reviews are effectively the same thing they're both looking at underlying merits of the application and a twenty four dollars which set up the process for terminating a grant of asylum in the language in those regulations provided that any grant asylum is subject to terminations upon a showing a fraud in the application such  the application should not have it granted and then at that point upon termination t h s shall refer or i'm sorry shall initiate the removal proceedings as appropriate and so two points here that i want to make st there's no requirement or no inference at all in this language that upon terminations of an application that application is then referred to an immigration judge for a video review and there is no suggestion that an application upon termination refer returns to it initial status upon initial filing in the reason that point is significant is because if d h s had wanted to include this referral process after term an asian they would have said so and we know that because that language is included into a wait fourteen c want as you are discussed that's worked by the south officer shall refer the application to an immigration judge bridgeable for education in removal proceedings that language does not appear in twenty is terminated that means that the asylum application has been adjudicated it can only be terminated after it has been approved after the application has been approved and only after an asylum officer determines that there it's fraud in the application sound claim is over and there is no language to suggest otherwise and this interpretation of the regulations is entirely consistent with the board of immigration appeals decision in a matter of a s j and in that case the facts are similar to this case the petitioner that case did look at the terminations decision to determine whether it rebut that decision it did not but the board of immigration appeals and reviewing with the immigration judge did determine that the immigration judge did not have jurisdiction to review the terminations decision and importantly the i a e a held that the asylum or i'm sorry the alien did have a right to reapply for asylum to file a new asylum application this is consistent with this circus  within it there is an inherent authority to evaluate whether that should or should not have been granted somewhere down the road and or the regulation upon a finding of fraud a brand of signing can be terminated so for all these reasons we submit that the board correctly concluded that the petitioner was removable and terminations of his persons was not warranted this conclusion was certainly not manifestly contrary to law if there are no further questions from the court over in my earlier agreements i explained why it's referred however the chief judge has also explained why this argument cannot succeed why it cannot be over when it's in the court this is because statutory authority to deny a case which they do not have well i think they actually do have the authority to deny well i thought the cheesy point was that once granted they can't terminated