judges where as nobody including the parties addressed the effect of this rule so i you can do it any way the the because i don't want you to do it or you want to do it but please don't and without close cases and he says i'm not going to do that because i don't think it's a good idea so you think it's not a good idea and then also thinks that the regulations independently do confer the power so so did that whether that power should be used in one way or another because he was started with the premise that the power would never confer act and if you think maybe it was back then i think he should overturn katherine too but even add to the point about whether he considered all of the looking at his analysis of the regulations i think he refers to the continuances and the germans as as indicators that when the regs were written there was a specific attention paid to this to this problem and those are those those were the remedies that were offered continuances in adjournments there was nothing explicitly said about administrative closures and and so he's making the point that because they didn't address it specifically  any what cases are they talking about the only case before the i j a is the deportation checks and those are the those are the such cases rightly so regulations that are appropriate and necessary for the disposition of such cases at least that's ambiguous i mean are they talking about the disposition of the immigration future for the for the for the petition or are they talking about the  no they're not monitored or tracked they can be restored only if as a practical matter d h s s demonstrates quote good reason for to resume proceedings i mean not even not even the federal courts have that we rarely use administrative closures but any party can restrict your storage of the docket just by asking and it comes back on the docket and that's all by the way that the attorney general spelled out that's what the attorney general spelled out it is and hears and his opinion anybody he didn't insist that they all be returned to the dock and me it would be of the basis of the individual  part of a party or party request so it you know and that's at least at least that that much is is is is is pretty clear but but if these are if these cases are just consigned to limbo and by the hundreds of thousands then how how does that all comport with the disposition of such cases appropriate and necessary to the disposition of  ambiguous because what is the case the case is the disposition of the case that's before the judge that the d h s s instigated prosecutors it's it's it's that judge is responsible for whether  up the person is deported or not and it's it's it's the disposition of that jason that's the one that you just and there you go concede it was the case in question so if that's the case then i don't see your your argument where that that we can read the you would ever have a judge actually issue an order on every calendaring matter is if the motion is combined with something as like a change of venue request that requires the judge to take action so there's there's no burden on the government and why are you objecting to what the attorney general said then and in in the case in question where the he said i'm reading requiring the calendar of all these cases immediately because that's that's essentially what he wanted  opportunity to have the issue in his underlying appeal decided because the board dismissed his appeal based on caster toom finding that judge's unambiguous we have no authority under the regulations and i would also like to go back to a question by one of the panel and were guards to the decision decisions of the attorney general language or order because the what i think is important about castro t is he wasn't giving immigration judges advice about how do you are going to start a closure he was saying there's no statute no regulatory provision that that provides any authority i've never delegated that authority as the attorney general to immigration judges decision your honor i would say that he said i am big asli that it it is not part of the delegated authority he may also talk about that but i think the conclusion of his decision general i'm making a decision mr disclosure should not be available you'd be allowed to do that but the problem is that his decision purported to be an interpretation of regulations and you think you got that analysis wrong and that's why we would  procedures used and it's an reasonable interpretation of the regulation because there is no barrier to that when you're saying because so we should say that the attorney general didn't understand that the way administrative closure works and therefore department of homeland security has used it there the prosecutors under the obama administration an administration they made a prosecutorial discretion if you have u s citizen kids you go to the end of the line we want to hear and take to trial those cases where an individual present a danger to the united states something of that nature is a prosecutorial choice in terms of what order to pursue the prosecution of the cases because there are hundreds of thousands of cases and a relatively small number of prosecutors and judges not possible to take all of those cases to trial so the prosecutors have a right to pretty standard recognition that a prosecutor has a right to determine the their order of preference in the your honor i would argue that our deference is inappropriate because the court the attorney general has applied an entirely new interpretation that contrary to forty years of florida's immigration appeals precedent and insofar as they may be affected by mishandling of procedures why doesn't he have the authority to determine what the procedures are going to be of the of the immigration courts well i would argue that it in regards to our deference that for my client in particular and for a number of other individuals in this circumstance it presents an unfair surprise there's forty years of use of administrative closure where the board of immigration appeals has directed it be used for individuals who are applying are who are god well when would it not we would not feel triggered by so because they've been doing it for forty years that the agency is perilous to change it any time they decide you disagree with his analysis but you don't disagree that he acknowledged that it had been the prior practice and he provided his reasons for for changing the practice i believe that the appropriate way to change there and certainly he can change it but he needs to change it by notice and comment rule making because the change because of the nature of the changing because i believe the authority is provided to judges to administratively close matters by virtue of the regulations  regards to the issue of an unfair surprise it requires that the changed interpretation be reasonable and the change in their petition we would argue is not reasonable and mr pollin is case it actually prevents unfair surprise that some procedural mechanism that you were never in title to and that an i j could permissibly deny is now not available because the opportunity to apply for an unsuccessful one a waiver which by regulation the department of homeland security required the individual to have an administrative closure order in order to file the application an order from the immigration judge saying the case was administrative leave clothes and there's there's no like there's no barrier to the court to a spontaneous reactivating a case cases don't get lost if a case is isn't going to change anything for your body to the market just turning to the question in this case the question is whether there is a genuinely indignance regulation and that a reasonable interpretation of that regulation is that it grants the immigration judge judges and the board a general power of administrative closure and there isn't such a regulation because you're can see that's not in the statute so they don't get their authority that way and if we actually look to the two regulations that they where the board and there's to restrict mystery to that the st is that it's not just any action it's any action consistent with their authorities under the statute and regulation and as we just said that in the regulation do not contemplate it ministry of closure as a general power and there circumstances not related to our case that the immigration system that power but not here and so that that st language they're consistent with their authorities under the statute or regulation that's one way that the term any action is happens and then of course the  solution something that you can't give us but maybe somebody else can give us and maybe one day we'll come back and resolve this question but the regulation specifically provides that immigration judges shall seek to resolve the question before them in a timely manner thinking with the recognized this procedure you know for years the court has done this new attorney general goes back to those decisions and says what basis did the board have to make this conclusion and the answer when you look at those all cases is the really isn't one the assumes that power and it sort of got away from them over the years but that there are that but but but they the reds are not silent when it comes to adjournments and continuance that's that that's that's and that that it doesn't mean that it doesn't mean that when they want to do something up along these lines they knew how to how to how to go to go down that and they get it with with those two step two other procedures correct your honor yes there is a mechanism for the immigration judge to extend their cases in the appropriate circumstances and the public circumstance isn't however when we're in limbo when a case is simply going to go away and maybe never come back and we're waiting on some outside of court activity that may or may not occur over the course of years and  the argument that i heard from the other side here had to do with the the situation in which there are two outside agencies both of which need the papers that have to be before the i g a and therefore it can't be managed that the procedures to go on elsewhere in the government to try and secure this person's status that would keep him in the country unless there's a continuance because you can't unless there's a mistake of closure because the papers have to have to be used over there and i'm wondering now i mean everything's done electronically is the is the agency's a v h s such that it's still everything's still on paper over there or if it's l this argument goes away it seems to me right i can tell you i don't work for t h s so i i don't know one hundred percent exactly what they're doing but in all of my cases it's not on paper we work operate in p d f often things are filed they have to get scanned in so impression that they can be right i mean this is the practice agency for forty years right correct your honor but two things about that st in our case matter faster two came out when this was still before the immigration judge so it's not like there was a surprise in terms of discretionary grants which i don't think you could ever say you're entitled to you know the removal you know when you have something bigger not entitle to take it away from you i don't know if it's an unfair surprise but even if that's a surprise at all immigration officials that  right so you know you don't deny that it has that consequence for him you just you just deny that it's a substantive r also in regards to the examination of regulatory language and the fact that there are particular parts of the regulation that address adjournments or continuances i would note that the different to those particular part need to have more descriptions because the attorney general in the regulation specifically limits and requires a showing of good cause for administrative closure until matter of the ets in in two thousand and twelve administrative closure was always a joint request of the parties so there it couldn't occur unless both parties agree so i think that there are there's some things to examine there in regards to to those will in a case where the alien in the removal proceedings is indeed had things that indicate he might not be competent to proceed judges sometimes have administrative expose on their own motion  decisions of the attorney general and the applicable governing standards the two i would argue that there are times when the attorney general has to issue a new regulation you need notice and comment rule making you can't just change it on your argument doesn't make you a new regulation is just based on your other argument that that this is a decision here conflicts with the unbelievers language of the regulation and so therefore you need to change the regulation right but it provides there's nothing in just you can wrap it up in the little include thank you i would just like to wrap up on the the the critical impact of the lack of administrative closure for that for individuals such as my client and individuals who are crime victims those how a prosecutor is going to get crime victims to cooperate if they're constantly worried about being removed that's the whole purpose of the you visa so there's no way for the court to put that case on hold why isn't  case the visa process can take a while in congress once you know i'm sure people are available and that they get the benefit of the abuses it was to protect crime victims to encourage them to work with prosecutors