military they were promised an expedited past us citizenship in exchange for service during a time of designated hostilities scientists or for some period of time before they were just charged they weren't charged because they did anything wrong they weren't  discharged because the army didn't want them to serve anymore they were discharged for medical reasons either physical elements that occurred as a result of their service or that were discovered during regular army medical exam plainchant each would be what's called an understand that what can i ask our understand why will never be decided by any court because if the the normal administrative your review process is followed through to its conclusion and then the agency denies naturalization and then that gets an overview in a district court what are the arguments that could be made in the district court is that the grounds for denial or wrong legally and then the district court has the answer that so there will be an answer to the question of whether what you're calling the policy is valid are invalid i think the question is the scope of relief that the court could answer that the court could hand down and that we may have some questions about that too but in terms of whether the legal argument you're making which is that it's just wrong to deny this one characterized class ability to gain naturalization it seems like the district would have to decide that question if one of your clients posed it and the context of a specific  district court and they're stating that they were not to do this even though that's not congress intent on congress intent and creating all of it and creating a structure with to make the process more efficient when you will that i mean that that kind of argument about how cumbersome the administrative process could almost be made anytime you have this kind of jerky situation in jockey itself i think one of the arguments that was presented was look why do i have to go through this entire ministry of process i mean i've got a legal claim that's a perfectly teed up legal claim why don't you just decide it and relieve me from this miserable experience of going through this administrative process and that but our case that the supreme court's cases in our cases don't give effect back kind of argument because where congress has set up an administrative and then mr risk review scheme supplemented by judicial review at the back and then it's incumbent upon somebody to explain why it is that that process should be followed through it's not the burden doesn't go the other way it goes in favor of thinking that that's the specialized process that you would normally pursue to its conclusion well even though it's cumbersome it can become for some even though it takes some time that's just what congress has laid out could never resolve any of the application in a way that will not make the court action now where necessary in a district court action looking at the coffee in the lock on is the policy now and the reason i say that is nothing that can be happen or be added at the district court level i mean sorry at the administrative appeals level in this case that will matter and every administrative appeal action and every administrative agency the point is there's still district court review at the back end of that in which you can make the exact same legal argument that you're making now well there isn't just a court room you've heard for everyone your honor i mean one of the things that you who can't get it if you if your know that application go directly to you and just record after failure you have your answer after going a certain number of days well that's a good thing from your perspective because then you're going directly to district court so why why is that a problem well the or just to send it back and tell the agency to resolve it right and so in the normal course but that's just it aside if we could we just put the stache aside for a nd in the normal course including i think in a couple of the course of a couple of the clients you're representing here the natural nations denied by the agency and then under one thousand four hundred and twenty one it goes to the district court and the district court didn't take that the noble look at what their naturalization was correctly denied and then you at the end that situation you have the exact same legal i don't know to talk about how it's for the agency because i think we have cases that say that it can still be helpful for it to go before the agency but just put that to one side at the end of the day it still gets to a district court and the district court still resolves the exact same legal question that was wrongfully denied because it was based on this category of one characterized as following outside of of of honorable and that's just wrong as a matter of law it shouldn't be done that way the agency is wrong to think that it can cordon off these people and prevent them from case this problem for a district court when a district court addresses whether the whether it was a valid for the agency to deny naturalization on the basis of this on characterize category that opinion just has that persuasive force that opinion has it's not binding on another district court is not binding on a court of appeals it's just a legal proposition that results and a conclusion for that case it's the same whether depending or that policy would not be able to naturalized and they asked each and every one of them according to us i asked would have to go through the individual naturalization process which can take years if you go through that administrative you know get the back court could you think that but it would have no presidential effect or any other applicants and you have to ask for the next one hundred years should make every male naturalization application go through that same burden and the same process even because the does it says the review session are before the united states district or from the district in which such person resides in accordance with chapter seven of title five and so it seems to me that a district court in a four hundred and twenty one action regardless of when us c i s says we can talk about that but with us c i s but the district court relief is commensurate with what's available to any district court that had an a p a action then it seems to me that if you know at some point you need an injunction because district court after district court across america is reaching the same resolution but the agency you know stubbornly insist that it's going to continue applying what ninety seven district or so determined as an invalid policy well then maybe a district court can enter an injunction in the same way that any district court handling a case under the a p a could enter an injunction if that's true and even your point about relief that being differential i think goes away is that right we agree with you in terms of your reading your honor is for prevailing and your opponent says well that was a different statue and so general electric doesn't apply here and i want to understand your response to that but i also want to understand whether your basic position is your clients do not not and never have to nod that their applications were denied so there's no issue for the administrat agency to resolve and even though you may raise before and administrative agency that the  i policy is invalid because it's contrary to the statute as a matter of law the administrative person has no authority under the administrative scheme to grant you relief yes your honor that's that's correct that that's that's the key problem you know you mention the general electric cape and we're not case comes into play here by its reading of mcnary and then looking at the mcnairy that you watch is almost exactly like ours in terms of you know what that agency can you hear the tape is guided by the government they are talking about different and they're talking about a situation where the administrative agency action that is trying to be avoided in those cases which is not a scenario here but in those cases they're trying to avoid an administrative agency a felt change the whole posture of the case and make it unnecessary and make the challenge that would then go to a court completely unnecessary that will never happen here there is nothing that will happen at that ministry to be agency level that denial of the at that level of pay and refer to this long standing u s policy so your options are in your view only to go directly to the district court as an initial matter under the a p a or i suppose file a petition i don't know what you file for the agency and ask them to not a petition for rule breaking how they change their argument about why the general electric is key in this case  is that the extend of what you think it is your best argument well i think it's a st step and that if you take that st step and do the statutory analysis and it doesn't show that congress intended this to strip other work of jurisdiction that's the end of the step but i don't think it's go on to do congressional intent and see the legislative history and you'll find that the same is true there in terms of what congress must have intended to be the situation here and how it would not make standards for naturalization applying to applicants in the same position so one of the points that us the ins makes is that in your complaint you are not limiting the relief t just to go back to the complaint and look at the complaint in the language of the complaint the well that's what counsel was quoted in other words i'm trying to understand how given the supreme court in our court for years have said you know our congress has a comprehensive alternative process for handling a matter that process has to be exhausted and as this case points out the male who started out in this case actually got some relief where the agency changed its mind certainly congress could have in my view understood that it ministry to process hopefully would resolve matters and eliminate this that was in the district court but maybe not all matters so that as two of your clients have done they have filed these individual actions in the district court presumably raising this legal challenge defendant provided earlier this week in the nd circuit change called yes i think we have i think we have that that distinction down and let me just make sure my colleagues don't have additional questions for and then if not we'll hear from miss reno and we'll give you a bit of time for a being heard in the district court where they reside the d c district court properly dismissed based on what i'm curious if after conducting the two step under base analysis and finding this place it claims had to be raised in  denial itself but if the agency has no authority to deal with the legal reasoning the supreme court in allegheny addressed that and found  a difference between the relief that can be ordered by a district court handling an individual case under one thousand four hundred and twenty one dollars and the release that could be ordered in an a p a action if one were to be permissible where the plaintiffs challenge the validity of the grounds for these denials on the basis that the agency's misconstruing the law in treating young characterized category as falling outside of eligibility for naturalization under four thousand and forty just just to clarify your question your individuals there was one individual that brought the claim in d c and then suppose that we just let's just assume that d c can go forward with that action and it's an a p a action is the scope of relief that the district court can order and that action different to find it but it would be limited to that place it so the strict court could not order that the policy be set aside only that it cannot be applied as to this plaintive that's that's correct because the d c district court do that in an a p a claim if well let me let me try to be more precise could the d then it seems like we're talking about the same scope of relief even under you at the as the government agree with that right yes the same scope of relief ok now now can i can i ask sorry go ahead now please i was going to change topics a little bit but i just want to be clear that in this circuit the district court in an a p a claim would have the authority to do more at least as to anyone who sues within that district in other words by saying that the rules the policy is and valid so anybody else could not apply the policy as to someone who is a resident of the district of columbia that would be the same in the city eastern district of kentucky if i could find no question about it would just try i'm just trying to clarify scope of relief it's not necessarily just an individual plaintive relief under the a as i understand it in the case of ms mary you have a i may not be pronouncing that correctly she signed up to serve this country and then after some service was unable to because lump was found in her breast in the following happened to her between the time line here october two thousand and eighteen and said to larry two thousand and twenty and sixteen months the c i s approved her application for citizenship then it refused to administer the oath to her then it scheduled the oath for her then it again refused to administer the oath to her it rejected her application then it approved her application for the nd time then it refused to administer her oath for now the rd time and then it rejected her application for now the nd time i think you're right on all the jurisdiction stuff and on how this particular case should come out but with regard to your client u s c i s is that how things are run there receive conflicting information as well it wasn't as if it was changing its mind based on static information it was receiving different information and it was responding accordingly but this this case isn't about the merits it's simply about whether the d c  then be no longer eligible to be naturalized in terms of the conflicting information though and whether or not how us the ins run it is how us guys run because during that same period of time we had two federal court case and some of the other elements of that court mentioned in the individual are not lawful permanent otherness they face a lot of the same harm and challenges and risks that other individuals that model permanent residents who are over and over and over again because they could never be addressed in any other asked and that just can't be right across congress has been sent and i know my time is up and thank you so much for your consideration thank you counsel thank you to both counsel for the organs this morning will take this case under submission