your honors good morning it may please the court my name is christopher health and i'm here on behalf of the petitioner maggie mu who lives in resides in chicago look what works in chicago i should say as do i in this consolidated petition for review there are such the three arguments that i would like to make really just to this is the nd one really evolves into the rd but we did state two issues in our briefs the st is about standing standing to assert an argument when a statute clearly allows a person in removal proceedings to seek review of a decision to terminate one's residency status by an immigration judge the nd concerns when it when a continuance can and should be granted and the  rd is about one's eligibility for discretionary relief if all else fails and a person in removal proceedings wishes to return to their home country without the severe negative repercussions of a remove all order will quickly if we agree with you on the st question is as far as we need to go and would we just grant the petition at that point the st issue with regard to my client having the opportunity to to seek review by the i j absolutely because she never had that opportunity so the record is completely devoid of what the potential arguments could be made because under the federal statute here we are all aliens any alien i should say i don't want to miss because it's critical that word any alien may seek review in removal proceedings if c i s terminates one's conditional residency status but that is that the question you really say have any trouble with her bringing this petition because the statute got to be interpreted and i haven't seen it interpreted and she may be one with appropriate standing she may be one who can bring it but i think there's a  nd question is there does the statue allow or to do it she can suggest i mean she can have standing to suggest she can bring the petition but then somebody has got to decide whether she's right or wrong on that isn't that correct that's correct so it's all right so then standing isn't enough well we've really got to decide is whether under the statute she should be able to bring this or not we look at this arguing in the alternative if she well look if she's got standing to breathe here then we and that's our look at it we could rest on that right now well but the question is we want to explore that we want to look to see what the government is saying why are they saying that the word any alien is ambiguous i don't know how under the realm of any stretch you could say question is has your client's permanent resident status been terminated under paragraph c it seems like it has it has and you're correct your honor you do have to have that nd prong that has to be terminated because it was not only terminated but the judge bifurcated or separated the case so she was standing there alone by herself this young lady had no other option but to seek review under the statute which was created explicitly for her because she's an alien any alien who has her conditional permanent residency terminated can seek review in removal proceedings and for an immigration judge i grant you that that does seem to be what the statute says but to me it is doesn't make any sense as to why congress would have wanted to construct a scheme like that so i mean maybe we just we're stuck with the plain text the statute but if you could offer an explanation for why would congress i want to try i could say if i'm the government this is what i would say i would say that it's not my petition this was my father's petition but she has to write she she is within the zone of interest she has a right to say you know what my father hired ten american employees put food clothing and provided opportunity they did you didn't fulfill the requirements of the millionaire visa as we call it the i five hundred and twenty six dollars you didn't hire ten full time employees within two years and you didn't invest a one million dollars or more in an in a business or half a one million dollars in an area that's economically depressed those are generally speaking the requirements for this millionaire visa the father it was it was approved just cut you off as you're straying away from my question to but you go ahead let me just put it bluntly and because what i'm asking is why would congress have wanted to create a scheme in which anyone not not just the principle entrepreneur or person but anyone any of the derivative folks could could petition when the principle person has left and just as abandoned does not want to have to get review what we i thought what this provision was designed to do was to attract the alien entrepreneur person that's who we want yes well we'll sort of take with that person these other people but if that person is not going to remain here and in fact has abandoned any effort to get review why in the world would we give a freestanding independent right to the derivative folks to get review why would congress have wanted to create that scene that's what i was asking because the nd prong directly affects her she's within the zone of interest the statute explicitly states that if one's conditional residency is terminated that alien has the right to seek review before an immigration judge were arguing what the potential strengths and weaknesses are of the review itself that the argument may be weak or strong because as you say the father left and went back to china but we're not there we're putting essentially we're putting the carriage in front of the horse because the statutes provide i'm saying but tell me if i'm wrong on this as i'm not an immigration expert but my understanding was that in pretty much every single other context except this one maybe the derivative status is tied one hundred percent to the principal person so if that person for whatever withdraws or application gives up loses the riveted person's fate is tied to the principal person so this just seems like an exception to that general effect from understanding the general right and i don't understand why in this one narrow area would congress have wanted to deviate from the normal scheme that we have set up ok so you are correct that it's like a domino effect if the petitioners application fails you know that the fly for example could not obtain a green card if the petitioners the principal applicants application was denied but this is a situation where the principals application was denied and then they place the daughter in removal proceedings then the case is bifurcated she's standing there alone and we know this the record is clear she's her father says return to china and now she's invoking the statute that says she's allowed to seek judicial review i'm sorry review in removal proceedings and now we're at the point we're saying was she's not allowed to seek review because the statute is ambiguous and should not include her the statute is clear it says any alien whose residency is terminated shall seek review or may seek review in remove the proceedings so to argue the merits of the case is one thing but the protection of the statute is quite another and she's entitled to protection under the statute to seek review before an immigration judge and now she's not you know the i just says no i'm not going to review this matter so then she's left with one option she's left with voluntary departure at the conclusion of proceedings and they go to the hearing it's not even a final hearing it's set for the filing of any and all relief she files her own petition it's similar to her father exercise of discretion and there's really only two requirements voluntary departure at the conclusion of proceedings is very common it's granted you know all all over the united states amongst immigrations courts and every court room you need to be present in the united states for a year  more and you need to demonstrate good moral character no criminal offenses for example fraud things like that which would be a slight against you she had none of these things the only issue she had was she was unsure if she had been in the united states for the past year or so truthfully she says i'm not sure there is some back and forth and in the i just says you know what you haven't demonstrated the one year we never even got to the good moral character so the i j a denies what's normally routinely granted most people in immigration court they don't want voluntary departure unless all else fails they do that to of or to avoid the severe and negative repercussions of a deportation order or remove all order so that's why they take so that thank you for your explanation but it raises a concern in my mind as to whether we should answer the other questions if if there's enough in the record here to say hey by the way she she does have the right to petition if you accept the plain language argument but it doesn't get her anything because on the merits she can't comply with the statute there's no question that she can't this statute  and eighty six b only allows her to make the same arguments that her father did under that i a twenty nine petition isn't that correct that's correct so now you're  saying it i have a little bit of a problem with this bootstrapping argument where where we have a statute that says she can actually if it's terminated she may request review of that determination but you seem to be bootstrapping in another argument to say not only can she raise the i eight hundred and twenty nine dollars argument but she can raise any other argument for why she should be allowed to stay in the country well no she can't raise any other argument but she can seek review of the terminations so she could ask the i g to simply affirm the decision that was previously approved just rather than say that the decision was was wrong and it should be reversed she could simply ask the i g to affirm the decision and then she would be a law permanent resident a permanent permanent resident because she was already a green card holder but it was it was contingent on her filing another application her and her father had to go through one more step and file an eight series application that eight series application was denied and then her status was terminated then she was placed in removed proceedings so she could go before worst we're saying that she can go before the i j a she never had that opportunity she could go before the i j a and say your honor you should reaffirm the approval that  affirm affirm that they already found relief or sheep will reaffirm but they already found that the father didn't comply well it's a two stage process or the st time they approved it and then you have to file another petition i see and they deny it and then they terminate so the language the logistics will so you're saying she has an argument that because the father and michelle apparently comply i think she can bootstrap into the st compliance even though apparently he didn't comply the nd time s the district director made a determination that he didn't meet the requirements after the approval so it hypothetically he maybe he didn't hire ten full time employees or maybe he lost two employees we don't know what the scenario is it could be that he didn't maintain them the investment the requisite amount of the investment we don't know all we know is that the the eight series petition to keep it to make it a permanent permanent application was was nod and his status was terminated and of course his wife and the daughter their status was terminated because they were terminated because they were derivative applicants and the prince was allowed to appeal on their own right even though they were yes even though they were in removal proceedings and even though the statute allows review by the i j a so we are talking hypotheticals for talking about what argument she would make the honest truth is the best we can do here if we were  based on your argument that she can make this petition herself based on your argument what the statute says she would then be able to go back and make this same argument you're making we're not going to come any further than that correct that's all we're doing in this case well we're arguing some issues in the alternative i understand your issue arguing issues and they'll turn a day of but if we were to go your way on this issue all those others would go away correct they would she would not need voluntary departure because she would be a lawful permanent resident you're almost out of time do you want to save the balance for her but i'll reserve my remaining time in rebuttal erica thank you for your address thank you let's  good to see that you're doing double duty on your trip up good morning again your honour's may it please the court i'm carmel morgan on behalf of the respondent the u s attorney general the government asked that you deny the petition for review  statute at issue is in fact ambiguous and so the board reasonably looked to the regulations for clarification or they established the regulations for  that's well yes i think i don't think they look to them i think they're stably should one decide what we're going to do the board didn't as i understand it yes i would agree that the regulations were probably promulgated because of some confusion as to what the statute encompasses with regard to the phrase any alien i admit that on the surface it seems terribly broad but this court in fact in the pair is a good case found that the phrase the same phrase any alien did in fact raise enough ambiguity to proceed to separate chevron step to it's really the context in which the phrase appears it's not just the the phrase is it isn't inherently ambiguous or not it's just that the way you want us to read the statute what it should have said is any alien entrepreneur because that's the corresponding term that's used to designate someone in the in the father's shoes right yes that's exactly our argument well now that that seems to be the best argument that the other side has is that that word is missing from the statute and instead it just said any alien who status is revoked goes from any alien and at the end of the sentence to the alien so it sort of goes from broad to narrower and is confusing but if you if you know it's not very confusing if you don't if you don't put in those words you want to put in it doesn't seem confusing at all because any alien can then be the alien you just want to add the words the entrepreneur alien and then it can get confusing i mean i'm i worry about this is that i understand that you think that we should find it's a big us but my only worry about that is if it were that ambiguous why is that it says that every time in each and every time that it goes through if you go back to and i'll be fair if you go back to be be one c and two you'll come well with the same language if you come up here now to the one we're concentrating on w concentrating now on a different statute and it says the same thing but in each one of those circumstances it seems as if it not only deals with the entrepreneurially and but all of the aliens and so i'm trying to figure out why it's ambiguous i thought i did a little research there's sort of a parallel statutory provision about removing conditions for spouses  anyone ever attempted to use that as the spouse or a child to get review i think the difference is that in that situation the statute specifically addresses situations where a spouse or child could apply for a hardship waiver and this provision for investor visas doesn't address any type of hardship but the regulation itself does identify if the simple petitioner has passed away if the spouse forced or if the child becomes an adult they could file an independent petition well that's i guess you let me exactly where i wanted to go because it seems to me that you suggest in your regulations that there are absolutely circumstances even i take your approach where the spouse can file their own the child can file their own seems to me that that's a contradiction to suggesting that the statute doesn't allow the spouse to file their own or the child to file their own i think a better way to state it wouldn't be that any alien means the alien entrepreneur but any alien in that context means the principal petitioner so  in those exceptional circumstances a spouse who is divorced or a child who's reached the age of maturity could file on their own and perhaps get review under that provision but that's because they filed a principal petition of their own the only the oddity about that argument though is that c specifically says that the the b i a may terminate the permanent resident status of an alien entrepreneur or alien spouse or alien child so it's a bit odd to include all three of those specifically and then in the next section say any alien whose permanent residence status is terminated under subparagraph see and interpret that only to reflect the primary individual so i let me ask you this look if we if we say this isn't unambiguous and we rule against the government on that do you agree with petitioners counsel that that's the end of our inquiry or can we go further i am trying to figure out why b i didn't seems to me she's been in the country for ten years twelve years i mean two thousand and seven isn't that when was it two thousand and seven or two thousand and nine that the father went back to china and because he was he was his status was terminated how is she still here ten years later and why didn't the government just find that on the merits she she should be terminated as well i think the answer to that is that the government didn't think she had standing to get you but it would be so much easier for us if we had an alternative argument to support it because it does seem that she doesn't have status to be here and yet we're not in a position on this record to make that determination if we agree with the plain language arguments being but i think i do agree with that but is that the government's next argument even if we go the way the petitioners isn't that we know all we do is send it back for a hearing right and at that point the government has all kinds of arguments they can make right right and you're not eliminating those arguments here today by simply arguing what you're arguing not at all not at all  going to take another ten years to make those arguments i hope not she was given very generous continuances i think six years maybe even seven total she had hoped to file her own petition and did so as an investor but that was ultimately unsuccessful a more interesting thing to me was that it was suggested to her that she might ask us c i s if since her father had gone back to china she could file a petition of her own to remove conditions and she never did so i'm not sure because it's it's frankly a little unclear i don't think congress intended for the situation when the principal alien leaves the country for the derivatives to have standing but it's not terribly clear she could have sought some type of clarification but never did  but that's really not in the record what is in the record like i could watch it in the record the reasons congress didn't do it oh no no no no no just just that it was  i'm sorry your honor what's in the record is that it was suggested that she might have approached us c i s to ask if under her particular circumstances she could file her own petition it would make more sense there because she again would be the the principal petitioner and i think as judge wofford was saying it doesn't make sense in this particular scheme it's a benefit to the united states what we're looking for folks that are generating jobs she has nothing to do with that she had wealth it could couldn't be as simple as in order to entice those individuals to come over and generate those jobs we're going to give protection to you know the entire family and allow them to me i mean congress does all kinds of crazy things that don't make a lot of sense but we're stuck with interpretive language and i'm good judge nelson said that but let's go one further however it seems to me obvious that the government understood that having the entrepreneur come and bring his family here there would be conditions which could come forth where the family would be given the same opportunity as w nor because they plan for it in their regulations and all i'm suggesting is it seems to me that then going back and reading the statute as well you must by the pla language there of it would seem obvious that all of those regulations would also be valid if i read it broadly rather than narrowly you know there's no i don't think that the regulation is in conflict in any way clear and i think that was well intended for those regulations i have no other questions i don't either ok i think we've exhausted our questions thank you for your thank you and rebuttal again if there is no other issues with regard to the ambiguity i don't want to continue to assert our point we start to object to any conclusion that this is a situation where it's a close call or it's unclear any alien means any alien an individual that's in removal proceedings any individual removed sittings and that person would be entitled to seek review before an immigration judge i also want to make some argument with regard to voluntary departure in the passport issue and or answer any questions at the court may have about that well given that the government didn't really address the issue and talk about the issue you thought was very important do you think it's really where given the business now you know we can rest on our briefs you know are we just we like to just pinpoint certain areas in our brief that we discuss the importance of considering evidence and we feel that the v i i did have the authority to review that or at least send it back to the i j a and say hey look this lady was actually telling the truth she wasn't lying we have the passport it's a slam dunk send it back to the i j a for a new decision ok thank you thank you counsel case just argued is submit