the regulations that minister to be close cases when it is appropriate and necessary mr flores is a fifty seven year old widow is a father of three united states citizen children who have resided in the united states for twenty six years before the thousand and sixteen mr floors did not have a hearing before the immigration courts in los angeles due to their own docketing issues it was without a hearing for four years he never had sought to continue as previously in the proceedings were resume we have actually been in a relationship since two thousand and five that motion was denied and it was argued at his individual hearing on august th two thousand and seventeen petition was granted voluntary departure two months floors to be removed from the united states before having a decision on the merits of that application ideally what would have happened in this case and to speak of the judge's decision saying that there was no benefit to ministry of closure not to close cases when it is appropriate necessary they had a question in that regard counsel and that is if this actually that i know are other courts discussed is appropriate and necessary for the disposition of such cases ignores the reality of immigration law what are we to do in cases where an individual to be serving time in another facility may be serving time and may be in custody what do we do in cases where an individual may not have mental competency but we do in cases where the individual may apply for relief outside of the presence of the court you have to trust the position as stated by the national association of immigration judges in our one of our local judges on the honorable judge  the immigration court system is broken there's over one million pending cases before over one over four hundred immigration goes into remove this agency tool in order for them to be able to manage their dockets of efficiently and to make their decisions is without merit and the attorney general's actions and miscues essentially was to create law and to hold that a regular you know how the you know the deviation from president doesn't necessarily you know the gate of the agency's authority to change its charter to sion but what what what is the argument that it's creates an unfair surprise for you can you can you describe the sort of alliance that there would have been on the prior interpretation of what are the nature of the what is the nature of the alliance interests or the how would people be unfairly surprised by  honor i was getting there but respectfully the regulations don't mention administrative closure except for in these other circumstances that are in a political here and in terms of what the plain language of the statute contemplates disposition of this court has it that right now the point that i'm trying to make and just would really like to quickly get out is that nobody before castro tom had actually assessed whether the border the immigration judges had that power all these other decisions cited for how they base average cheesey in that administrative closure nobody has ever decided that the regulations say this or explicitly grants us right and the i a g made that analysis and found that they do not and i think the th circuit are pretty strongly suggesting the existence of social power if we were to rule for you how could we reconcile that with with what we've already said about the regulations in that case i guess if that is the case then we are having a disagreement about the plain language of the regulation then i would say that it's ambiguous in which case it should be deference to the attorney general's interpretation of  regs that don't apply in this case what what's what's your answer to the point that your friend on the other side made that you know if we think it's ambiguous reese we ought  i'm not sure he's saying that i think he's saying that other tools need to be use in terms of continuance says or terminations so that they can get the cases off the docket but we know of i have understood i'm not talking about going forward the when the opinion i'm not aware that that's actually being executed well fin the i guess my problem with the argument that there was a reliance interest in the administrative closures that administrative closure doesn't confer any benefits on dalian and the alien at any time knows it has proceedings can be reopened it hasn't changed his nobody's actually dumbass analysis and there is no authorization for the us i was curious of your thoughts about the dissent in the th circuit decision and as i read it administrative closure is not a disposition seem that there are examples given there where that type of closure could be appropriate and necessary to eventually achieve a disposition and the fact that it may have been overused over the years isn't really the legal issue before the court and i'm obviously are perusing there but what are your thoughts on that  f i understand that argument i do think that the six circuit majority opinion sort of was working on that because in practical terms nothing has i don't think that means that the attorney general can interpret as regulation the way that he has or looked at the plain language and of the saga management system which is all th from now that's possible but i think he was reflecting on the general time that it's taking to litigate and move on these cases status already cases are not languishing there are so many instances where the files are where they need to be administratively closing those cases provides for the files to rest with the agency who ultimately has the sole authority to make  i would also state that the timeliness the ability for an immigration judges to be able to use this to manage their talking would actually a lot older other cases that are right to be able to be decided adjudicated and there in the practicality of this is the attorney general essentially made a regulation when as you as the court spoke in the other cases they had the ability to make a regulation to say