which that court ignored sovereign immunity principles to which i hold it that the national appeal division proceedings of the department of agriculture are under section five fifty four and therefore subject to the equal access to justice act to review of the of the statutory text the legislative history and and application of sovereign immunity principles leads in this capably to the conclusion in that in that context in the context of the de endangered species act the the formal adjudications that were required were under section five which before the a p a but that is not c sixty nine ninety seven and sixty nine ninety eight congress set out specific procedures that are different from those in the a p a so are you arguing that congress has to create an exhaust that the hearing officer who does not have to be an a l j or a member of the body that does the decision making body unlike the a p a as a general rule may take new evidence and is not bound by the facts t deportation process the specific points at which deviations from the administrative procedure procedure act were made the recognition in the legislative history of this adaptive technique and of the particular deviations and the direction in the statute the method immunity with respect to the statutory scheme because the because of the this is it's a comprehensive statutory scheme that simply takes certain parts of section five fifty four and certain section five fifty four applies what in your view is the minimum that congress has to say well your honor even if that if congress had had said nothing had simply  proceedings would be under under the a p a that would have been enough if congress had had simply been silent on the a p a would have kicked in on that basis that would have been enough but what it did here was neither of those things and then it's instead it created this hybrid which is not under section five fifty four well let me ask you know that right you're following maine in the eighth circuit cracked and there's nothing and part of the way that this came out they said well there's nothing in the ninth circuit that sovereign immunity principles and also because it attached excessive importance to look at the language in marcelo or the theater to the fact that in marcelo there was a specific statutory exclusion but the a p a directly apply is of its own force and it has to apply sovereign immunity principles recognizing that egypt is only a partial waiver of sovereign immunity and that uncertainty must be resolved in favor of the government w requires the determination to be me on the record after opportunity for a hearing and they can see the thing at page twelve decided for the most part do think that it was correctly decided in terms of all of its reasoning or just the bottom line i think it was correct in its reasoning and he has followed the the statutory language of the a of agencies are always player to provide more procedures than those in the a p a well it seems that some of the language in lanes where they're placing the burden on the government to show that the a p a applies conflict individual with financial resources and a great deal of will to follow through and appeal the government's determination not to pay  i believe were clearly entitled to under each and now these farmers are committed farmers they have a lot of dedication to what they feel is right and they think well to do it  if there are no further questions they're not appear to be any credit questions thank you for your argument justification as she's educated your honor i did not believe so i believe that there would that would have have to be remanded and decided in the first instance by five even steve rather than the market it's my understanding that i've looked at that language just now also and my understanding is that that means that with that the government certainly concedes that they are prevailing parties but it and it didn't argue that their that the government's substantially justified that that terminations was never made the latter determination was never made at the agency level where it would have to be made in the first instance when only if you're if you if let's say that you know i mean i can see as there's a reason to put things  procedural status an obviously i think counsel for the you know i thought least indicated that you know that you know that they have an interest in you know is that after you know that seven they don't get these cases on a plate that often and obviously both parties to arched aren't you stuck with that well no your honor i don't believe so because here as i'm laying in the lane the state's circuit also reminded for a determination with respect to the substantial justification issue after it ruled ruled that as as indicated by the passage that i quoted in my opening argument the the the court the supreme court looked at far more than just that that exclusivity provision in reaching the conclusion to nat proceedings under a proper strict construction just waiver of sovereign immunity right here time is expired thank you thank you both for your argument in this matter the matter when asked down submit