case before the court your hires raises the issue of constitutionality of forty two u s c forward to add or two up to that of the social security act at the argument here is old citizen citizen of the united states when was he naturalized he was the naturalized in two thousand and seven following a week the government just told us he was certain he was a lawful permanent permanent resident he would he was the the naturalization is permissible only for fraud in obtaining citizenship i think you'd see he was eight you know very unlikely that your client was a citizen who was denaturalized well he came to the united states in one nine hundred fifty eight as an eight year old he married a united states citizen you obtain citizenship through marriage is my information although i do you understand the difference between a lawful permanent resident of the u s citizen i did write i g t the question here is not one of whether he was a permanent resident or a united states citizenship the question here is whether he worked requisite number of orders for tribute into the system which he clearly did for thirty eight years of his forty eight years and forty nine years that he was in the united states prior to his removal and in fact the  social security administration issued a letter upon its application for benefits at the age of sixty two stating the fact that he qualified and he was entitle to receive old age benefits however because it is a residence abroad he was removed in two thousand and seven he applied in two thousand and twelve that his benefits were suspended and he could not not because he was residing abroad would because of the circumstances of his removal correct correct released after that release the proceedings before the immigration board began for his removal but again we're not disputing any of those facts we're simply looking at is the continue system for almost forty years and who died and was left with no benefits or either upon his request after the dialer suspension about this for monies that he contributed over excess in excess of one hundred thousand circumstances they're changing the world and united states generally correctly or so you must have been here for the earlier case where we reminded counsel the decisions of the supreme court are binding but most of the justice themselves overruled them right as fleming been overruled as not then it's binding on us irish it's really simple the world may have changed the internet may have been invented to write home a lot of things have changed i understand but flemmi against no stor binding on us i agree with you judge i agree with you but you're asking us to ignore no i'm not asking you to ignore it i'm asking you to reverse remand the ruling by the district court judge but i do understand and i do concede that fleming  do you think congress could raise the retirement age for social security they can't why can't a do this well with congress can't cannot do is act in an unconstitutional man that's the conclusion about what's unconstitutional about those you know if it's not some kind of private property rights that can't be affected by for example raising the retirement age congress a united states citizen and if you look to the hearing transcript with the a l j that opponent did it testify himself because his attorney said that the facts were not in question but his attorney referred to him as a legal resident alien on page ninety of the transcript it was only at the district court level that he started referring to him as a someone who obtained citizenship at some point without giving any reference to where that was coming from and if you look at page five of the two and want to use an applicable because mencari is a citizen correct and there is no evidence that he was ever a citizen or that he was ever again naturalized page five of the immigration judge a court challenges are entitled to a strong presumption of constitutionality and appellant has not overcome that strong presumption congress's choices that are is issue here are examined under the rational basis review test and  congress has choices where patently arbitrary and utterly lacking in rational justification and he had the burden to negate every conceivable basis that could support section two and two and has not met that burden this is  turning back to the side of the issue that he was a legal permanent resident that's an important distinction because it's well settled that the supreme court has settled that congress may treat alien differently than citizens and hell it was never a his criminal convictions and he admits that he was ordered deported he did not voluntarily choose to leave the united states he was under an order of deportation so his equal protection claims really have no basis because he admits he's not similarly situated t other groups that he identifies and because there were numerous possible rational basis for the distinctions between the groups that he identifies a kind that the takings clause argument i believe is foreclosed by know that that the math is being eldritch horror book to the routine nature of disability cases but retirement cases are really even more routine in nature all you're really looking at here is an individual's age th