we have four cases the sporting in one this afternoon and the first of the swarmings cases is number eighteen dash fourteen sixty two the contrary i bar the secretary department of homeland security avenues are there not far that's to say citizenship for an adult child in this particular circumstance just rick and yes there are while there are other avenues available general adjust the status of the child which would seem to say they are cannot adjust the status of someone who is not a child and this this son was not a child when it came to the time for adjustment the will the kind of the window to attempting to adjust that's one potential reading but the best reading especially given that there is there is you know it's an entire closet there's no separation as that's not separated by any commas or any other number of absurd consequences i result from then on the regulation and these absurd consequences i really have severe and undo consequences for the individuals whom the statute is intended to protect the regulation it really  is not a permissible interpretation but the assert consequences are that someone ages out of the ability to get relief and there are numerous regulations that permit  that and that's what happened here he age out so how is it but how is it absurd as absurd and it's not only you that someone ages out of eligibility your honor it's that it's impossible fundamentally impossible for  applicants were for the government to know when someone is actually eligible for relief and when someone must file in order to obtain relief it's also if it's also entirely possible for someone who was while under the age of twenty one at the time finally to be  permissible under the law and the supreme court's statement in that case was really an observation of of the immigration system and potential negative consequences that are prevailing throughout the new because that is what the court telling us how they reached the  case because because that you text of the statute because of the text of the statute because of congressional intent because the the the regulations result really can't you square with either the types of the statute or with congressional intent well maybe it could i mean the idea is that while this is purpose or this period of cooperation and investigation from whatever occurred whatever crime occurred to this person during that three year time period before they can adjust to l p r status that's the time period we care about when we want them to be reunited with their families so they'll cooperate more i mean that's that's kind of in a policy statement so it could be that they're really more concerned about that the current visa holder during that three year period wouldn't that be just as reasonable as saying oh well obviously they continued to be concerned after you were jest l p r you are in addition to the idea of not just promoting but you know the idea of promoting cooperation it's also congress also made it clear that you're only a pain benefit so long as you are useful to an investigation so long as you can be compelled to cooperate the investigation and even also in even on that point the very fact that there and it's also important to note that even you know the these absurd consequences are are not subtle ones not ones that are unknowable they're ones that are very clear and necessary and natural consequences of the particularly because there's really no countervailing benefit that the government can consider for the usual isn't this i mean you talked about the numbers and the fact that most of these applications occur with current visa holders have things like six thousand current visa holders and then three hundred adjusting l p r so that you know the marla story is during that three year period you really need to to to file for your your children and that you know that that the fact of the so if you wait is because they know they really need to do it during that three year period of rest they could they could have a problem there at the whim not intend to to limit the category of individuals who are who you know who should be able to receive receive relief to the first category and the congress recognized that there may be individuals who like harm here are not able for others for financial or physical or psychological reasons to to reunite their family members and you can in the immediate aftermath of the attack and the incident that led up to the you saw and that coming through is twelve forty five i'm three congress status of a child so that it depends on the definition of child but so it is you know that definition doesn't go your way under the way that it's been put into gregg's so what is your strongest argument the child is the way it's been interpreted in the regulation is incorrect the storms are going to what is your strongest argument that the definition of child is incorrect the definition of would not argue that the definition of a child chop ok then why is the age of regulation incorrect because a regulation imposes an apartment i don't harm that's not in the face of the stash and i does not appear to be honest i should which is that be that the child remains under the age of twenty one and throughout the but then by the time it comes to a determination as to the person has a spouse they're divorced or one dies does it matter will stand there even though that person's divorced grand discretion to adjust that is or to deny applications were fairly shots from parts of that so that you're saying when it comes time to adjustment the agency would say oh well you're no longer a status but at the time that your wife was given current you your current your visa you were so therefore it will allow you to just doesn't that seem a little bit absurd not not necessarily your honor for two reasons one is that you know again the hardship from for not permitting that you know a former spouse who just missed out as well by the same token if someone's over twenty one when it goes to adjust they might say well you know we're really talking about children and minors and people who are dependent upon this person regulations to expand the scope of her own statutory authority if we start at the plain text of the statute as the district court did the operative text says upon approval of adjustment of status under section twelve of the five am one the secretary may adjust the status very shortly thereafter and there's a delay of over five years and now the person is twenty one what happens and what you are suited to clarify are so was there a ninety nine submitted concurrently with the parents because the regulations do allow so it's it's not just a matter of when the parent is just a matter of when certain particular file so for example when this i are could have submitted on concurrently with her i forty five per application to adjust  we've was about eight to nine months to be processed so there's no guarantee but there are expedite requests that an individual can file with the aid of this was what the day before the person for twenty one the nine to nine i believe let me just i'm sorry  period then she got out p r right there with the three year period she was actually backdated so she was granted status and made twenty ten and it was backdated i'm sorry i'm sorry she was conferred with you nonimmigrant status in july she doesn't mind which was backdated until november two thousand and six so then when she submitted her i forty five her application to adjust status she'd had effectively the necessary physical presence for that to be satisfied so then delayed for over five years what happens when the assuming then your honor that the parent goes on to adjust status to our status there are other avenues for relief which i believe judge window is what we're seeking but what happens in this case the assume there for the moment that there are no other avenues of relief what would happen depends on when the i went thirty is filed and when the forty five thousand one of these a number becomes available but i think bringing it back to sections whole fifty five m three was not meant to be an extra or excuse me it was  adjusted and obtain the more stable immigration status they don't lose that the child's you know petitioning process why would the policy change for someone who was a current you visa holder and would have qualified at that point they still have that status even that they've adjusted to help you are so they moved on to the next but but the same principle that animates the you visa holder situation which still seem to apply which meant i don't think so you are and that's status revoked for example if the law enforcement agency certifies or explains that you're no longer cooperating with the law enforcement investigation that status can be revoked whereas once you adjust to an l p r status you no longer have that it's  by doing or i'm sorry she was penalized by doing that you know i was by adjusting to a p r status i certainly wouldn't say that your honor i believe that she herself obtained a much more stable immigration status which in turn allowed her to become a u s citizen which she is right in terms of what we're going to do here which is to get here soon to tag along she's penalized is she not i don't think figure because like i said there is the other procedures as i understood it assume for the moment there isn't if there was not i think you could say that it was  penalty but it's really not because congress is presumed to know the scope of the statute when it legislated and so when congress legislates and says you can move into this more stable immigration path you become even more stable immigration status you gain the i won thirty petitioning procedures the immediate relative position procedures but you would lose the you won procedures we don't like that you're losing the you want partition procedure so we'll give you two hundred fifty five and three which will still allow you to bring your child or spouse over and over and i think that your hypothetical example the plain language of the spouse example going to the plain language of the statute really illustrates exactly why this regulation is a reasonable construction of the statute if your individual spouse on the date that the application is filed but then you get divorced then you can no longer really say that that individual that that divorced spouse is that was eligible for the benefit under section two hundred fifty five and three individual loses their qualifying family relationship the only difference is this was a function of divorce in th versus a simple eating procedure and i think that really illustrates that the regulation is simply part of a longstanding administrative tradition of saying that any application for a benefit is a continuing on you have to be eligible on the date you submit your application and you have to retain your eligibility all the way through until the date that the benefit is actually mantid or adjudicated and i think that's reflected in other parts of the statute in the day osorio case your on as your honor mention congress to the supreme court mention that that is a perfectly normal operation states and you're determined to no longer meet the eligibility criteria upon which you were granted that piece of it can be revoked so i think the notion that an application for a benefit is only measured in terms of the fact and the date that the application was submitted is really not how the irony operates in fact if we were to hold assume that we were to hold that the standard here is ambiguous concerning the what to do don't we need to remain and under the supreme court and sooner motorcars decision because specific case in the federal register going to find anything either i can point however to regulation eight c f r one of the three point two b one which says that all applicants for any benefit request must establish their initial  way to citizens to preserve overton park it's an application for a benefit request is a continuing one so although i have not as your honor been able to locate a specific provision in the federal register as an interim regulations explaining the reasoning for this i think that if you look to the broader scope of how these kinds of benefit applications and all that applications are due to it is perfectly consistent with the normal operation of the i a e a the only reason i could see which was  more the real reason it was a long standing policy in practice that's not a reason as to why they did this like i couldn't find anything well i think you know i can i can i can speculate i can obviously offer you know my own views on it but i can't substitute for what the regulations say but i do think that the fact that the supreme court has noted already in the dio sorry a case most recently that individuals can age out of the benefits benefit applications they seek and that's simply something that can be helped and it's also worth noting to your out of the bed is not just a super speaking of course there are always going to be the cases on the fringes where becomes more difficult but this is a case where the ninety nine petition was submitted one day before the individual w longer be classified as a child under the statute there were numerous ways for the individual to have the petition considered concurrently along with the principals application so if you looked under the federal regulations i'm looking at two forty five point two for each one you could have submitted concurrently she could have but she was obviously and psychological state and that's what makes this tragic and kind of distinguishable during that three year period she didn't feel that that she was competent to take on caring for her child and so therefore she she put it off until she felt she was of course around and forgiving no one wishes to minimize the impact of what happened to  in this case but i think if we're looking at whether the regulation itself problem categorically is a reasonable interpretation of the statute we have to look at not just what did happen below but also what could have happened in other words the other routes that the agency could have also submitted a supplement which is an application to have her child categorized to receive derivative status that was one opportunity that the agency provided to two similarly situated individuals but it's because of a purpose that and so once you move to section top fifty five and three the scope of that incentive is reduced and so is perfectly consistent with the fact that other avenues for relief exist once you become an l p r to see that you don't get as generous petitioning procedures the same at the same generous petitioning procedures you did formerly under section under the you under the new scheme so i think congress is intent was to make sure to keep consistent the different pathways to obtaining a decent of course i  can just speculating on that but i think that shows that it's consistent across the statutory scheme to show that you know once you're in you want nonimmigrant you have these derivative petitions available to you once you're a lawful permanent resident you have these derivative petitions available to you once through a citizen you have these positions available to you and i think that's how the statue needs to be read and understood is that this is not just an isolated piece of tax it's amongst a whole host of other provisions of the i in a better allow individuals to bring their family  lawful for the agency to deny to forty five it was lawful and appropriate for the district court to affirm the agency's decision and for those reasons this court should affirm the district with  give you say it's a week inference that should be drawn when congress legislates in one area and and is silent as to another but in was sallow that the court said where congress includes a particular language in one section but amid said another generally presumed that it acts intentionally and purposely the case you cite scripps howard for that supporting your proposition really involve the stay and inherent power of the court but where where the flat specifically stated that the court has a power nonetheless it's inherent before it has state power so we don't draw that same conclusion that you have any other case that supports your view that this should be a weak inference rather than the presumption that the sale of the cited your honor i believe and i don't have the exact casings in front of me i believe there are many debility here the idea that you know eligibility is contingent on circumstance and not changing up an application that really has no rational application one comes from and age which is a circumstance and necessarily changes after an application and which