is really i don't think i'm talking out loud anyway ok fair enough we'll call case number sixteen dash four zero four seven five united states versus garcia and we will first hear from m you did not deal with a special immigration juvenile but you dealt with a temporary protected status emigrate or a did i submit that the same lot of the circumstances are similar to that but a big difference is this immigrations this status is given to juveniles who both federal law and the law most state laws impose restrictions on possession of firearms so should we take account of the fact that it's generally not favored for juveniles to have firearms in deciding whether this status but what allows your client to i do not disagree with that statement however my would not a juvenile when he says the gun he was still under that status in this country but he was not a juvenile but the bigger question is whether people with that status are allowed to possess firearms and we have to look at the fact that it's a status given only when you're under the age of twenty one the start of that was given to him without him to remain in the countries thought he could try to adjust status and he was here  that special immigration juvenile status well i want to ask about that because i have the same question judge costin does when we're talking about just your client and just this status i think you have to look old listicle and i think that's a problem for you but i want to look at this more broadly because we know that there are and the number varies several million people living in this country who do not have what we call full status and not all of those people are prosecuted and some of those people are moved in of stench in one thousand nine hundred two and they show up in my court in two thousand and fifteen they're still here so we know that there are a lot at least some people without full status who nonetheless are  not deported or removed and who are not prosecuted in any way and sometimes by design the government will decide look we're going to prefer people prefer for removal people who have prior criminal backgrounds versus people who don't and so on because it's so such a massive number of people they can't do everyone where do we cross the line from i'm not deporting you today to you're here lawfully i mean what the decides or somebody acting under their authority decides to remove that part of his thought he didn't have any immigration status our car he does have some status because he's paroled into the country and you're at the discretion of to remove someone to me can we say that's lawful because that would cover a lot of people that most people would consider unlawfully here it doesn't i would say it is lawful there was another case denied there was a dissent in which i believe you participated in that dissent the dissent cites a case out of the di a circuit got to see our versus holder that case also specifically deals with special immigration juvenile and concluded that they do have a status in that dissent the court the dissent of clothes that a special immigration juvenile has a status and that it's different than other type of people being here that are paroled in this country or that way and it's not just that there's a discretionary decision not to deport your client it's that this status eliminates one of the bars on being eligible and so your client still has not yet jumped through the final one which is getting the status he's just allowed to apply for it which i agree in this realm of immigration people sort of standing in  line you'd rather be that guy than the guy who has no hope however that's still not in my view the equivalent of lawful status i mean that's the question we have to deal with and i guess this might be a good time for you to address the case that we asked you all you know friday and i think like in a letter from the court on friday afternoon but we decided you'd rather have read the case the not before we started asking you about it the abram case which on the one hand it says we don't really give deference to an agency's interpretation of a statute for criminal purposes on the other hand it says the rule of lenity is kind of a last resort and you really have to consider the statute holistically so tell me your views on that as your authority for something you know that well time on on the majority opinion of what he gonna accept that in that case it was temporary protected status but i'm saying that temporary protected status can also be granted to a juvenile that is not allowed to have a gun at the time that it is granted or by one and this has nothing to do with purchasing a gun that's another problem that the statute has it does not distinguish between ownership and possession but we are bound by majority opinions of the supreme court majority opinions of our court not beautifully written dissents whether or not we joined in them or agree with them or think well of the people who wrote them so focusing on majority opinion after oriana so does it alter oriana well let me focus on the but ga opinion which i disagree with because they state state that that the purpose of the laws to prohibit people that cannot purchase it yet that question that was on the form forty seven seventy three did not deal with whether the person there was but it would be a model for could legally possess it or own it and of obviously it was apparent that the person that he w in saying that the regulation is designed to be the deciding factor doesn't abrams you say that in a criminal statute the government's interpretation of the criminal statutes in forcing isn't to be given deference the statutes give to the a t f interpretation of the regulation ok but the regulation itself is an interpretation of the statute of the criminal law and if congress gets to make the criminal laws and have just one little sentence and exactly there's no definition for the word parole anywhere or illegally and so when the court is acting strictly as a court and way it's written says the word parole and so that is the issue that this court has to decide whether legally in interpreting that statute the five that my client was paroled as a juvenile but not always an adult that might mean and you're saying we should ignore it i think what the u s supreme court is saying is we're not bound to give it any deference however that's not to say you can't consider it as persuasive just like you could consider a large view article as persuasive in the know you're not propound by it that said three courts that have decided that people under starters are here legally or iana here the michigan court and the nice circuit i mean overseas holder they've already decided that when you are paroled into this country you're given lawful you're not here illegally you're lawfully no technical definition for the word lawful in fact this morning already on us that we have to give them to the regular meaning  in standing by for whatever the supreme court does of course we have to do our best at this juncture with what we have and then the other matter that a brown deal with that could affect this  your client's concerned about has b which has all this stuff about restricting sales to juveniles and i agree that's not the exact question here we're not talking about whether he bought a gun as a juvenile i understand that it suggests that congress in passing this would not mean to exempt someone from the unlawfully who has a special juvenile status that allows him to apply for some other status ok so that's the point that i'm saying is a special juvenile something that allows him to apply for some kind of status doesn't seem to be what would have been in congress is contemplation of exempting someone from the usual unlawfully present our need to close up  forty two seconds but i'll say this on the second point it's very and should be we should ask congress to rewrite that law if just just because he could not understand it and dissented why could should my client was a young man understand it there was this sense all over all all the other cases have to settle nobody understands the law because sometimes you interpret it one way sometimes another no they sent in  may please the court my name is adam goldman and i represent the united states in this matter we asked this court to affirm the decision of the district court which properly properly ruled that the defendant in this case the individual that only had an approved visa petition did not have that petition does not grant somebody any sort of legal he wasn't actually granted the status he was granted the ability to ply for the status that is correct and i believe there's some confusion about the term status what happens is when somebody  petition they're given a visa classification they can then use that approves a classification to basically get in the queue when it's not an immediate relative and then once their priority number becomes current they can then apply that visa petition being approved as one of the requisites there are two other requisites one is that a person cannot be invisible under eleven eighty two that would be admissible and the last one is that they have to be admitted or paroled into the united states and i believe that is sort of where the issue comes in this case is that within that the twelve fifty five age the statute issue here for people with the approved i three sixty visa petition based on being a special immigrant to try to get into a lawful status they stated that for purposes of twelve fifty five a person is deemed to be paroled and we submit that reasoning that language indicates that it's only so that person can overcome that last of the hurdles and for fifty five days so that when their number does situation where the temporary protected status for being from one of these countries that was treating people inhumanely removed a bar on being eligible for adjustment of status so how do you distinguish oriana as i mean according to your regulation in oregon is the defendant unlawfully entered without inspection and authorization and not been paroled into the united states so you nori honest under the regulation that defendant would have been guilty  we would disagree or honor one and we believe you have to reduce you know in conjunction with oriana in lucio under the temporary protected status which is a different section that's i need section two forty four when somebody applies they get what's called temporary treatment benefits a lucio this court said that person is not in any sort of status such they cannot possess a weapon when the status is actually granted that's when oriana kicks in now we believe this is much closer to lucio because what happens is when the i three sixt granted there's no background check there's no fingerprints there's no biometrics there's no examination for good moral character all they look for is to see if the factors under eight u s c eleven zero one eight twenty seven g and eight c f r two zero four  point eleven are met and is the most important issue there is obviously the order from the juvenile but looking at the regulation which might not matter what the defendant or eon is you're saying didn't meet the regulation why he did come in without inspection authorization a type of admission because he is going through the background check process the government the d h s s actually looking at everything to make sure he in fact qualifies for this temporary time that he's allowed to be in the united states under t p s missouri honest mention this background for the court to the background is actually done under the statute of the regulation eight c f r two forty four and twelve forty four as well as the statue in that case which is i and a section two forty four and the main thing you look forward to a background check for s is that the person does not have two misdemeanors for one felony so i just want to be clear these distinctions you're making between the scenario in arianna and our scenario you're saying we can verify that by way of c f r as we don't have to go outside the sort of four corners of the statute and regulation books on the virtual shelf to get to this point we don't have to go dig into the ice is you know policy book or something like that that is correct or ok there's no need to go beyond regulations ok that's a that's what i was trying to get to because i think that would be inappropriate but i think we can look to the statutory regulatory framework to understand you know where we are and i think they're one of the t p s situation there you have sort of a tube step process you have the application for the t p s and and you get employment authorization while that's pending and due to the number that usually takes a long time to go through all the background checks fingerprints are done in conjunction with that biometrics are done and while that is pending the person gets what's called temporary treatment benefits and lucio the court this court stated that the temporary treatment benefits is now and the sort of status in our case where you have is the person merely has the i three sixty visa petition approved and nothing else when the priority number becomes current then the background checks are done then they look to see if he's actually admissible which he wouldn't which he would be admissible in this case based on his criminal record so they go through those other steps and only if that were to be approved  u when he got the status adjusted just like in oreana when the status was granted that is when the person becomes legal or lawful so we believe those are the important distinctions between this and oriana do you think abram ski  this defendant was specifically notified in his notice that his status was not changed he got a very specific notice stating that you're legal your whether or not your leader or i'm awful your status is not change disapproval does not grant you any status and to somehow think that in his particular case rule of the rule then he would apply such that he might believe a status change might believe that he could well in this case lawfully possess a firearm welcoming and kidnapping them it would just doesn't fly because we should remember the rule of lenity is only when we're guessing at what congress intended and in we have to first look at the totality of the statutes and i haven't seen you really embrace the analysis that we addressed with mr press about the whole of nine twenty two and how it doesn't seem to be encouraging juveniles to have guns and so forth and how that all links together and do you think wear off on a tangent there on a rabbit trail buys making  e they came to this you country wofully they went through an inspection process they got admitted as a tourist as a student as some sort of lawful status that statute says that person cannot possess a weapon and less it's some sort of hunting license and they get a specific hunting license that a specific weapon for the hunting so certain hunting exceptions but that statue makes it very clear we're looking at a holistically that an individual that comes here lawfully as a student a tourist what you call a specialty worker an h one b worker those individuals can possess a firearm it's very clear under the statute when looking at a politically and we believe it would be sort of and contravention of the statute holistically to then say all those people that went through the inspection process whether the admission process or here is lawful students lawful tourist they can possess a weapon but this individual that crossed over the rio grande illegally and merely got a visa petition somehow is allowed to possess a weapon and we are given for victims of crime say a sex trafficking victim someone is brought into the united states unlawfully for purposes of sex trafficking and the u v s a says that we're nonetheless going to give them a visa because they've been victimized by this crime i think there is to be a showing of psychological or physical harm and they can be helping the government prosecute the people who brought them in with that person be able to have a firearm for protection if they're just in a status based on the you visa or any sort because what we're dealing with here is the petition for the visa and what happens is the visa itself is not grant there's no i think he got the juvenile status he just didn't get the more the permanent status application remains pending for that right that's where we disagree around with the term status we believe that there's so we don't think there is juvenile status we would submit that there's a juvenile classification the status is actual such as temporary protective status adjustment to wall permanent residence status but when someone just as they' petition approved they're not in any sort of status and i think the best way to look at this is to look at the line of cases it but tyo hussein diaz and i worry i'll stay that somebody with a visa petition does not have any sort of step does that ha legal or a lawful status and already it was for possession of a weapon the reason this is important this court looks at the statutes regarding visa petitions take for example eleven fifty for a one a one that deals with a married couple just because that person is married they don't have any legal status to for example an axe murderer and gauge than a very normal bonafide marriage with a us citizen that person does not have status just because the marriage is bonafide and yet the statute we first to that person is having immediate relative status and these status they can apply to stay based on being married right yet just the visa petition gives them the classification and i think that is sort of where maybe the confusion comes in is that the visa petition saying well there's these other types of status like juvenile status actually disagree your honor in that dissent and also the cases cited garcia that's the ninth circuit got it that's different for three reasons one your honor in that case it dealt with something called cancellation of removal and the person had to show that they were a lawful permanent resident for five years and actually admitted in some status for at least seven and that court said that when there is a delay between the petition being filed and the just in the status being granted not for priority reasons but before because of for lack of a better term a government screw up because there was a delay in that case for no reason that those extra years count but in that case the l p r status was granted more importantly your honor in matter of reza and matter of visy the board of immigration appeals rejected the ninth circuit's reasoning in garcia the reason that comes into place as the board of immigration appeals stated that the reasoning garcia in another case called garcia quinn taro would not be followed across the country later on in a case called gomez soria and this is all mentioned in the briefing and the before the district court and gomez soria this court followed the board immigration appeals reasoning and reza and v z so it appears that this court in soria actually follow the p i is one of whine of cases and stating that they were going on their own way in opposite of the ninth circuit in garcia and garcia when tara so that's what we believe that garcia if anything has definitely not been followed by as to what was stated in those notice well if you're if you would please send us a twenty a j with just the cite to that if you could i will you i think the site you gave us was to your brief in the district court so that's why there was they have a front in the back and the language that we provide i would just like to see if i don't get them myself routinely so i would like to see it and i personally couldn't find in the record but that is mean it's not there and that's why i'm asking you for a cite i will get regulation should not be given force we of course didn't want to say their own regulations are not a place of all but a recipe does suggest that relying on the regulation combined with all the state in oreana that the a t f basically should not whether or not its use only supports the government's case for seventy eight point eleven has a laundry list of definitions as a score is well aware and in this one it has a list of what is considered to be an him or some sort of legal or lawful status and when it deals with parole it deals with actual parole which is under eleven eighty two d five and that is specifically what the statute states we would note that when it does deals with what is legal or lawful status use of the word including we believe that's actually very beneficial to the government because if this court looks at the definitions in four seventy eight point eleven there's also a different nation for controlled substances and that definition states including then but not limited to provided by a list of drugs here when they went down to the lawful or legal they just stated including and then had parole in the admission statutes so therefore we would submit that if the regulation is followed the regulations only assisted government and that is where we believe also that the knights that the michigan court was mistaken also your honor in flores and in lucio both of those courts when they were talking about the different definition of parole both florence and lucio specifically stated that when looking at overall like what impact is this case have on other cases or other situations what is your perception as to the dreamers people who are here here as dreamers can they possess a weapon or are they petition looks at very specific matters regarding you know whether or not the person is a ward of the state what the juvenile court determines that only looks at those factors and nothing else this could that if so people that come across the border that sneak across the border by filing a three sixty getting approved for those factors alone if this court a stay they all have status by the mere filing approval of that visa petition by way of analysis they would all be allowed to waffle and legally possess a gun under nine twenty two g five we submit that was never the intent of congress to state that everyone that follows this one visa petition magically unlike any other visa petition can now possess guns irrespective of the rest of their immigration status their criminal history their background checks which have not even been been done we just submitted that would not be that would not be in the congressional races last year on again going back to oriana because i know it's a concern i'll try to be quick that that with the actual granting of status in that case the statutory status was in fact granted a statutory temporary immigration status was granted under two forty four here no immigration status has been granted because you apply for status under twelve fifty five and that was never still continued that is answered in the memorandum of the law that the judge signed or the trial judge signed on general fifteen and part of the record excerpts where it stated that