sixty to thirty in a streamlined order that the issue has been argued previously in the ninth circuit there and there may be other cases that for decision purposes have priority but nonetheless would like you was very young children they were nine and ten years old they're now they never left united states they're now twenty five and twenty six they're actually now married they these two young people start to do the right thing they sought to legalize their status using the married to each other just to marry to each other they didn't know each other when they came to united states they came with their respective families but they're not actually married and the question on the motion to expand the record made on behalf of panel no but the core on its own issued an order on friday i believe on its own motion construing the motions that we filed in ricardo's case that is the supplement plan to attach the additional documents once granted is that correct well we were we going to just use the same document well the documents are in front of the car and i merely filed it as a sort of a technicality to to make sure that we're on a parallel track with both cases but status they ended up going to a notary who promised them the sky promised them permanent residence they ended up in fact on a track for deportation they ended up apply for cancellation of removal without a qualifying relative and got sixty days of use the magic language but they modified the decision by reducing violence or departure to thirty days and then the notary fall a petition for review with this court this fraud has prosecution of this fraud they were victims of crimes specifically done to grant that among other crimes and they qualify for you visas under the statute under eleven all one hundred fifteen you a statute that was inactive back in two thousand to that make it clear that when department of homeland security officers encounter possible victims who may be eligible for your visa they are supposed to take steps to slow down this process basically suspend enforcement and make sure that i would you will just help me out on the chronology because when that matter was before the b i a had the and the initial you these authorization been enacted i mean i know there's no regulations yet yes was elected in two thousand judge a thousand so then they go to the i a e a and at that time did they have the certification or did that come after the question i have then and so i understand that obviously they could've raised this they couldn't even have raised it at the time because it didn't exist right so then we are in this kind of procedural posture i mean and we can't stand  take some measure hold the matter in advance continue the matter using its jurisdiction of the voluntary departure issue because we want to ensure that these these two young people do have an opportunity to apply for  regulations under these regulations which have yet to be promulgated the statutes passed in two thousand it's not two thousand and six they've been sued and congress is an act of legislation in january of two thousand and six ordering issue regulations there's by july do the procedures excuse or do the procedures and regulations provide for you securing interim relief before the actual regulations are provided are completed there are rig and i don't know what jury rig means because i've never refused that term in an opinion there is a process that's been set up that your clients can use there's been ministry to process that would allow exactly the same thing you're asking us to do by stating so the question that's in my mind is why should we when they've already through the process determine there's a way to get interim relief well we've tried to make use of that process judge there's been a number of back and forth between us and the vermont service center which adjudicates these applications and there are no regulations in place no application i stand that is now set up it's set up precisely for that reason before the regulations are in place so you have an interim relief the people who could secure so my question is what is the status of the record before us the actual record before us as to the efforts of either one of these people to secure that letters indicating we don't think they have they're not in a position to extend interim or aletha at this time they don't actually is that is that in the record that's that's the actual letter is not in the record we made a record aware of that it's not in the record well we don't have the record then of the response we don't have the actual response now we've made the court aware and we've given the certification such a but now let's let's just  for purposes of discussion we do know that they've been correspondence with the vermont service center if you were to lose your petition on the other issue and we didn't give you relief on the you visa and then you were back in them you visa limbo with these this lack of regulation would you have in your view a right to free tuition for review the absence of a decision or the denial of a decision out of the might be i'm just trying to figure out the practical result would be if if you didn't have relief from here and you were to lose when you're sixty thirty day issue then they would be in jeopardy of being deported exactly to our mind which is essentially what is the actual detriment here to the petitioner in this case in the absence of the regulations being issued the suggestion is that without these regulations  petitioner doesn't exactly know what to do what it needs to do to qualify but more importantly it it is unable to obtain any relief in the interim and that's just as a factual matter that's not correct of the documents that are that have been decision in two thousand and four but under this specific guidance at the suggestion that well it's kind of a limbo where no one is getting a result council mentioned that there was a challenge to bold should not be removed from the united states until they have the opportunity to them themselves and the provisions of the t v p a now how can anybody and they are themselves and the provisions  particular protected status for the alien it doesn't confer an immigration status but what it does is it prevents the alien from being removed if it qualifies for deferred action so do you let's say somebody applies for the u visa they have to go now under the interim procedures from the time they apply one option as they are they are people being granted really for some people your crime the facia showing you get just heard action and then is there a group of people who are applied but haven't yet either been granted or deferred and they're just sort of d n a they don't have ministrative body well although i don't and under the current interim situation yes your honor although i don't represent homeland security i have spoken with them and they actually don't issue what's called the nihil where they close the file for those who have not been successful what they do is they issue a letter saying you have not made your showing but they don't close it they leave it open so that a particular athlete can provide additional  year i think congress was basically impatient wondering why the homeland security had not issued these regulations so i don't want them to do that by july regardless of what the congress was thinking it did order them to do it by july and  e it is not done i again i'm not here on behalf of the homeland security but the regulations have been trapped in there in circulation within the agency they do expect them to be issued soon but they don't have a you like how things are they did not and i don't think that they could i mean frankly your honor i've worked in a number of agencies and i've worked in regulatory positions as well and staff can complete a rulemaking and as it goes up the chain it may be that the actual head of the agency may decide at the last minute let's let's change something it may be that it will go out as a proposal it may be an interim rule and that could have an effect as well and if they issued an interim rule that would be effective right away and so then that would be a regulation in effect and they would continue to comment on it but that's just one reason why we think they're holding things in advance i mean this is a very indefinite period of time i mean if you if if this case is held in abeyance waiting for these rules particularly when there are some interim guidance and play this could take quite a while i mean when you take that into the whole purpose of the public remaking is to take einstein take comments from the public and then they revise the regulations in response to that count that's why the rule making process works that way so it actually can take quite a lot longer after the initial rules have been issued either interim stage or as a proposal to congress passed this act when two thousand changes after two thousand and you know a lot of this a lot of the duties that were in the department of justice they created a whole new agency and i think there was going to that was issued in two thousand and one but i think being straight forward the guidance that i think actually the reduction of their military departure issue then they would be subject to having to depart the country in thirty days is that correct after the mandate issued here and if they overstay then they would be in violation of the momentary departure rules out answer the latter part first yes that they overstayed that would be in violation the thirty days as i understand this court in the decision and the mandate issues let's say that's fifty two days afterwards they still have the remaining period of time so the thirty days started to run prior to them filing here correct and i think with these two petitioners the actual dates that the dates they have left one has seven days and one has nine days so fifty two plus seven one will have fifty nine days and one will have sixty one days which is actually i think interesting because congress has since they have changed the statute to limit the amount of time that that the i j the immigration judge of the board can award for this departure which is sixty days and this case both petitioners here will have that amount of time the record shows whether this is a whistleblower statute or whether it's a statute or regulation which allows the government to have witnesses for certain criminal conduct or is it to root to reward people because certain kinds of crimes have been committed against them what's the nature of that of the regulation i'd say it was two of those three things judge it was one to help the prosecution of certain  types of criminal behavior certain types of trafficking and some enumerated but also in furtherance of that prosecution to provide some protection for those particular aliens who are helping with that prosecution would give them some additional prick protection during the interim so it's both of those and and there were certain specific crimes that were targeted is i understand it largely prefer protection of women against abuse of issues in this case the you know many crimes to not include the crime that's involved here who who makes the decision then it's within the parameters of the regulation when it's not specifically one of the contact one of the specific target current well i think the first you know we would you would need to look at the particular regulations to see what the homeland security has said about it how it is interpret the statute i think the court certainly could visit you know the how the agency is considering that law within the confines of chevron deference because i think that is clearly a legal question but i think the important thing here is a lot of the series being placed on you know there's really nothing here that can help the petitioner until these regulations are in place what the interim guidance is trying to do it's trying to say if you can show on  should the four elements that are going to be in the regulations and it's not that they're interim guidance is one thing in the regulations is another if they're having difficulty making their prime motivations showing now they're keeping with the humanitarian interests of the united states and conceptually i just don't see how that look what happened to these people the kind of grand theft that it was made them think they were that was the ultimate regulations came out that would be another law enforcement type effort to protect us from being found in that situation i mean we know a number been prosecuted and are being prosecuted because they're depriving very vulnerable people well i don't that i know that i would disagree with your honor that the facts can change and get closer to  these first the enumerated crimes here but also there is latitude for similar activities and one or types of crimes but i think as i read the guidance the interim guidance that's been issued they're trying to take a liberal view now because they don't know what the regulations are going to say so in looking at whether a particular petitioner has made their prime with patients showing to qualify for deferred action i think they're looking at it broadly now thank you i've just pick up on the last point that was made by government council which is that the government is being over rather than under inclusive i believe that's that's speculation and that is one of the issues here  statute not only list specific crimes that talks about similar crimes and granted many of the crimes involved in this the violence kidnapping acts etc but it also mentions extortion mentions perjury and mentions obstruction of justice all crimes involving domestic violence etc and sexual assault secondly one of the points that we don't have any regulation governing regulations service personnel should ensure a broad interpretation of the guidance to ensure an alien is not removed from the united states if it appears that they fit into one of these victim categories thank you i think we have your point in mind