in this we wanted to determine what was some of the decision process in how the chinese immigration cases were being handled because what we have found was a pattern  pointing out that what the loser really complain about is the fact that they think it took too long in that process to occur this was initially an end game attraction at a time when the forty five applications for adjustment had not yet been why it happened and well the position the government's position has always been the case is about mandating the mandamus complaint was met because the forty five applications were in fact adjusted and now action no your honor there are allegations of discrimination within the complaint within the mandamus complaint and we look for somebody on many bases but one of them was that there was no jurisdiction for subject matter over discrimination claims in that case because this is a bottom and a p a issue and addressing the looking at the case under the administrative procedures act there was no violation in point position that they do have jurisdiction to make the agency do its job more quickly our position has been that we are doing the job as quickly as we can and we're trying to get these done and we will try to get this one done your honor expeditiously but our position is that the courts don't have jurisdiction to tell us anymore then do the job they don't have the jurisdiction to say do the job right now that presently speaking what happens in this case is that alien is here is brought here on an l one visa that is they work for a company back in their home country they're coming to this country to continue working for that company and so they're here as a nonimmigrant working for that company then they are here for a time and it is a defining period of time for which them visa is effective while they're here somebody makes a decision that they if they fail you need at that time the agency is looking at whether or not they meet the criteria for that for for eighty five adjustment oftentimes an investigation may ensue if questions arise in connection with the type of b investigation and looking at the quote unquote evidence that they lose have put forth as discrimination which in the record i believe this i sort of record page seven twenty five twenty six it is the four memorandum from the district director to the agent in charge in hong kong saying we like to have an investigation to your family and because we found in our judy cation of these cases that there may be fraud occurring in connection with people who are trying to establish their relationship with their subsidiary or parent company and this manager who is seeking adjustment of status and that's based upon not the fact that the loser or anybody else from their home country are chinese in this case but because there's been evidence having to do with people from not only the people's republic of china but also people from hong kong and also people from taiwan and it's also important to remember that we're only talking about a particular category of these are adjustment talking about folks who are trying to be adjusted as managers under that the management exception that applies only to a very small sliver of people trying to get adjustment of status as  as managers so that i think that the the contention by the lose was never supported that this was discrimination what the record does show is that the agency determined to undertake an investigation in connection with the lose just as they done as they had done with several other immigrants and it's also important to know your honour's that seven twenty five and seven twenty six in the next are perfect or are not naming the lives of all those named other plan does squarely address the issue of eleven fifty five and whether or not there's discretion in the attorney general to be able to reprogram the i want forty baeza it has application because it is clearly dealing with that statute the reason the argument that eleven fifty five somehow should preclude the attorney general from revoking the visa the statutes been there it was an argument that they could have made and the government would submit today that they have waived that  assuming that that was insufficient and that it was warranted then the court also made findings as to the merits of the claim that there must be a violation of five agencies and of course to develop this system this ability to take every single one of these individuals and put them into an overseas investigation that they knew would never be completed