in this case is about this case is about the proper venue for judicial review fisa petitions u s companies file on behalf of foreign workers and the w in the challenges like this these challenges here along in district court in actions under the e p a the district court below broke from that well settled understanding to hold that because the beneficiary of the decent petition is removal proceedings judicial review of the visa petition denial is available only to a petition for review of a final removal order against a beneficiary therefore dismissed plaintiff's district court  action the district court relied on three jurisdictional provisions to reach that conclusion and i can certainly get into the weeds of each of those three but ultimately they all all three of those grounds still for two basic reasons   st reason is that the district court's reading of the government's urging would deprive petitioning companies of any judicial review in any form for for review of their own disadvantage and again the district court's theory is that these claims can be heard only to a petition for review of a non citizen final removal order but that serious judicial review of isa petition denials deprives companies whose petitions are at issue of any review in any form because the company is not a party to the removal proceedings and it has no standing to petition for review of a non citizen final removal order and again that's to astounding result because after all the here from the immigration courts practice manual which expressly warns people in removal proceedings that they can obtain review of abuse of petition denial in those proceedings and it's also clear from the attorney general's own recent decision the matter of castro tom which clarified once again that immigration judges are limited to review of actions that are given to them expressed by regulation and neither the government nor the district court has pointed any regulation that gives immigration judges or the board of immigration appeals any authority whatsoever to review decisions in removal proceedings and again because the decisions at issue in this case arose outside of the context of removal proceedings and because removal proceedings provide no form for either mr r t l or more importantly to petition company it makes no sense to channel those claims through the petition for review process  i'd like to turn with the court's permission to the a p a finality ground that the district court and the government principally rely on and i think the easiest way for the court to dispose of this issue is just to recognize that u and if you look at the reasoning of this court and both of those cases the reasoning was very plain the courts held that u s c i s as decisions in those two cases were finally agency actions precisely because the parties in those cases could not obtain any judicial review of those decisions in the removal process and i think those those two cases really control the outcome here because it's the same situation the visa petition denial at issue finality i would like to turn briefly to the two jurisdictional provisions in the immigration and nationality act that the district court and the government yes let me just put too fine a point  reverse a district court because the a p a finality again and that was the principal basis it's not supposed to operate as a bar to review it's supposed to ensure a complete record and that it subverts the purpose of the a p a finality provision  construe it in that way thank you for if there are no other questions about finality i would like to turn briefly to the two jurisdictional provisions of the immigration and nationality questions arising out of quote actions taken or proceedings brought to remove an alien from the united states are channeled through attrition for review process and you really don't need to get much further than the plain text of benign to see that it doesn't apply in this case the issue in this case it's a legal challenge to a piece of petition denial and that denial doesn't arise out of an action taken or proceeding brought to remove mr  doesn't arise out of the removal process and i think that's well illustrated again by the fact that those decisions are not reviewable but in the end the removal process but i also think that this court's precedent for that the court in that decision held that the nine applies only with respect to an order of removal so only if you are challenging an order of removal does being on kick in and that's clearly not the case here the other of that decision really breaks down why visa petition denials aren't swept up by the nine and it's really again for the simple reason that a denial of a visa petition is unrelated to any  it's referring to removal proceedings and again to the denial of a visa for tyshan or a change of status application to nonimmigrant status it's not an option to commence removal proceedings removal involve some exercise of prosecutorial discretion and one thousand two hundred and fifty two he really gets at that discretion but again the decisions at issue in this case don't involve any prosecutorial discretion their objective eligibility criteria does application would be expanded and more fun and i think your question this injection is somewhat why is what matters what's in the agency's record why don't why don't we care about what's in the agency's jurisdiction i mean i think judge martin's point is why should canal have to wait on a removal proceeding in which an i j or the b i have no jurisdiction to consider this petition denial at all well one thing that you think it's very clear with respect to i removal proceedings which is you know if you're trying to overturn some you're trying to get a negative result if you're the person involved in the proceedings that those proceedings have been stayed pending the outcome of this case is that right the court says the st prong the action must mark the confirmation of the agency's decision making process in this case who is the agency in that court right that is a great question i think in this ins been busted up and sent all over the place but still it seems to me that in this case the way matters operate the agency here and in the us guess proceeding only the company as a as a party not the individual and over in another department of the executive branch in a removal proceeding only the individual of the party and not the company it just seems like there's so much agency jumping in there that's not really what's recognized in matter of l t v are that it can be wasteful and inefficient for immigration judges to plow ahead mediately that the removal hearing when they're spending matters that could impact the removal process and so that's why the immigration judge granted a continu proceedings are paused and that's just that's a longstanding practice it respects the administrative process the rd point is on the legislative history i think mr press mentioned that the nine was amended in two thousand and five actually i think that undercuts the district court in the government's position because again the settlement the settled understanding in the federal courts has been that jurisdiction is in the district court for these challenges and so the fact congress i meant it to be ninety two thousand and five and you didn't see fit to change to add any language to express the cover i just recorded opinions i think speaks to the fact that it doesn't cover them and the final point is about mr artemas pending adjustment application yes it's true that the beneficiaries