case and try to make key points that you feel we need to understand this morning if you're not able to address something of course will anything that's been raised in your written briefs is still preserved and to be mindful of the time you can see the clock as well as maybe i won't be giving you warning when when the clock expires it's time to wrap it out if you're answering a question from the court of course feel open today with a somewhat surprising quote from justice scalia from the case green laundry machine in which he states we are confronted here with a statute which if interpreted literally produces an absurd and perhaps unconstitutional result in our tosk is to give some alternative meaning to the statute that avoids this consequence similar we're here today to examine the absurd results of the government's interpretation and application of the laws in this case in each of the three issues at hand we are faced with the potential for manifest injustice fundamental unfairness and utter absurdity i hope to persuade this court today that it must avoid absurd irrational results and instead but to ensure you statutory interpretation and construction or better yet the constitution to arrive at a fair and just outcome if justice scalia could do it i believe this court to can do that i see that the court i proffer that the court has three options in this case one would be to avoid the merits of this case altogether and find that this issue was previously  decided by the immigration judge and that the government is precluded from bringing up this issue now the nd option would be to attempt to apply this ambiguous statutes or possibly engage in some statutory construction to achieve a result that is not irrational and absurd and the rd option for this court i submit is to find that the statute at issue here is not just ambiguous but it is understandable to the average person or do you think it if you are right it just needs to be struck out it's unconstitutional i believe the subsection of the trade statute that defines terrorist organization under the tear three category is  salvageable the wording just doesn't work a group you cannot define how a group can engage in these activities as a group it is just too ambiguous and it just leaves it open to a one million different things and it's it encompasses activities that are protected and it's just not it's we can see from the case law which isn't precedent here we can see all of these attempts to try to come up with something that makes sense and courts are literally citing common sense well let's use common sense this is not acceptable this law is being applied in cases with nearly identical facts in a wildly different ways in all different places at the immigration officer level in the immigration courts before the board of immigration appeals and amongst the districts throughout the country and the circuit courts this really doesn't this statute that particular word of the statute does not work i don't seek to strike down the entire trade statute or even scrutiny it seems to me the biggest well i would say to that that the there's two issues here one is that this that the wording of the statute defining that terrorist organization as a group which participates in terrorist activities it could be considered bait or it could be overbroad the over breath part of that argument is if it prohibits protected activities such as being a member of a political group or having a certain political opinion that is protected by the st amendment the statute is vague because there is no logical way to apply it to a set of facts anyone's facts including the appellant's or anyone similar situated it is impossible to rationally and fairly define who which groups are terrorist organizations under this tier three subsection because it's impossible to clearly delineate ho needs to be struck down i would say that possibly salvageable in terms of vagueness but in terms of over breath i don't think it's salvageable because again it covers activities that could be protected  possibly by the nd amendment it covers so much behavior and activity that extends beyond any rational notion of what a terrorist act is it encompasses too much  there's i mean there's only maybe two words in it that i would say are overbroad most of the statute refers to things that we know are terrorist activities but then provisions were added in the patriot at that goals through murder and make it is a logically possible it is a dot easy to figure out almost everything you said yes is logical and easy to figure out so i think that we can define what a political party is i think we can define the group of people but then how does the group engage in murder and ma the other cases that have looked at it have said well it's it depends on the leaders of the group if they have authorized for example murder and mayhem or it's posited by the rd circuit and the board of immigration appeals that oh if most of the members of the group engage in those activities then the whole group is engaging itself so i i disagree that it can be the find that way the statute does not say a group that has most of its members committing terrorist acts is a terrorist organization it does not say a group whose leaders authorize murder and mayhem terrorist activities is a terrorist organization that's not what it says it's any group which participates in those activities so how do you determine if the group participates in those activities is it most of the members  problematic constitutional way i believe that we could certainly define that group because they have explicitly stated in their platform they probably have written documents for example that group in this case has a written constitution for it for its party there is if there is some written explanation of what the group's goals are and that they are willing to use violence terrorist acts and further and so that i'm perfectly fine personally with labeling that as a terrorist organization but that's not what the statute says that we're dealing with here the statute does not say a group that has in its platform you know explicit permission or authorization to commit terrorist acts and further ends of its goals i would agree that that is eight a way that we could try to if we were to leave the statute as it is that is the way that i would suggest political organization involves a one million members a one million or so see a card carrying members right yes or two members of that one million group political organization don't look at whether or not that activity was authorized by the organization and again in the case policy as you know the nd censorship looks at whether or not there is direct authorization for that activity and this decision is made on a chase by case basis looking at the organization looking at the members looking at members in the organization and form work together so in order to make that determination and agency making that determination they would have to look at the party as a whole and what's in the record and how the organizations that's gather police the awami league and other opposition parties as recently as two thousand and thirteen the state department reports show that they moloch top cocktails and other bomb making materials and party they found that the terrorist activity statutory language is broad but that's ok the congress in creating a statute how the intent that there is it was created with the with the guise of foreign policy amendment freedoms are involved so how do you think we should allies this cade's given that it's at least at one level clear that mr islam was a gauging organizations and your three terrorist organizations and individuals are coming into this country under under the immigration statutes so like the other courts this analysis and is not necessary under have to have some powerful that he knew that the organization to which he lend his support terrorist methods or bomb making or violence in the absence of that whatever i have here that would establish knowledge of his core and it is your position that basically this really wasn't and i now the fact that he was providing material support to interior terrorist organization and understanding where is the problem with that is you know whether it does is to what extent that this is an actual issue in the case like a regular occurrence in their society but that is not what that's the central question for me that just because individual people are skirmishing in the streets we're not talking about  you know jihad type terrorism we're talking about two democratic normal political parties that are fighting for power and they have skirmishes constantly but that does not mean that the party as a whole is a group that they authorize those activities they have never had the leaders have never ever there's no evidence in the file whatsoever that the leaders of the party have question we can look to the rd circuit decision of being but the question of the authorization once again so you would have to take that that general notoriety of like lots organization over an extended period of time at least a decade has been repeatedly involved in acts of violence bombings using firearms  stand against opponents political lens even though at the same time it's involved in the electoral process but it uses a pattern  as you stated it is that you are stating the political party has engaged in these bombings and having firearms and things like that how did the party engage and how did the party members of the political party have engaged in bombings etc you can apply the suggested analysis in the dicta of the rd circuit case which says if most of the political parties members engage in those kinds of activities then you can then it meets the definition of a tier three terrorist group but that is not what the statute says as it is you are constructing a statute and that case to