behalf by her employer we shall last the opportunity continued with the three step process that ultimately could lead to permanent residency in the united states she also lost the ability to renew her h one b district court here tonight standing in the court recognized that michelle suffers an injury in fact under article three but held that the injuries not fairly traceable to the department of labor decision and that's not regre both of those holdings are wrong while the injury clearly is fairly ptrace here the department of labor slammed the door on a three step process depriving her of the opportunity to continue with that  a reversal of the department of labor decision if they think that decision foreclosed her from doing what that decision could foreclosed her from getting a labor remove her h one b visa which would be expired she can only do so well this process is pending and she can only do so while this process has been pending for a year so if she were to go back and try again she her she article three standing inquiry that is of no woman it's clear that what the agency has done here has caused this lack of opportunity and it would be redressed by a favorable decision and that's wh that is exactly right and there are ways to demonstrate any kind of eligibility for step to any kind of showing and does she he she doesn't need to keep the injuries here is a lost opportunity that's what recognizes that's what the cases we've cited to tell corrupt party those all recognize that the injury is the last lost opportunity is an injury and that it's caused by the denial of the sign it would be redressed by a favorable decision and i think that the district court when it said well it's not caused by the decision because she can try to mitigate it somehow by finding a new job or on getting the employer to fire while another application not only doesn't work now i think it's important to know that as the government points out a boot involved a relative position but the reasoning here is the same who recognizes that it's the last opportunity that injury that would be redressed by a favorable decision on another thing the good news is reject the notion that because it's the employer there was the relative but because of rd person is filing the has no interest here immigrant last standing and who clearly rejected that notion as have several other cases we cited corrupt party one time yeah well rejected the notion that because it's someone else who files the michelle clearly falls in the interest this is a process that is designed to decide whether she can work in the united states and ultimately become a permanent resident the notion that she is not there for asylum is that it does the same here it shapes the eligibility requirements for an alien seeking at step one to move on to step two and to step three and the fact that step one is requirements trigger us similarly employed or what's different about this case is that it was not bought by the employer to challenge that determination but by the beneficiary and i won forty petition that could be filed on her behalf if the  the employer could extend it and you did you have to get i mean she is in her complaint i mean there were two the operative complaint that we have she does make reference to you know loss of job opportunity and what not but it's all geared towards the fact that she was able to pursue a permanent residency you know through the hope going through the whole process yes yeah actually make reference  updated but she doesn't claim to be injured by it if you see in the complaint here well you have to read i mean if he don't well then i think that's the only fair way you could read her well maybe not the only fair way i mean i think that's a reasonable way you could read the complaint example for example you know and i realize this complaint is kind of strange i mean she's a pro se but yet it's obvious that she was assisted by a lawyer of some some sort or somebody who had some legal knowledge because drafted it's starts out with parties jurisdictional statement statutory and regulatory background standing then there's a specific allegations and claims for relief so she had some some assistance the opportunity of pursuing that application and you have to read that into the claims for relief because she refers back to all the allegations in the complaint i guess what i mean i understand that the l there's no causation alleged here what didn't cause it offer up an alternative well your honor i mean you know you can't do this for him that there are other me the only fair way to read the complaint is th fact stems directly from the department's decision i don't know what basis there is to say that she doesn't have standing or your honor i believe with what the fact that she said that she standing to do so because they could possibly have lost the opportunity to work for the company because that person only had the one that actually lost a job it's hard for me to see how that doesn't  positions skin in the game to constitute standing and you're telling me that well there's possibility of somebody else out there not getting hired for that position that person doesn't have standing i don't need to argue about with you about that what you need to establish that this person doesn't have standing and she's won the last the job and there's no dispute about her injury in fact so what's the basis for the distinction between this person who actually was the job and somebody else there who maybe someday d might apply for a job with the same employer seems to be the year i was a part well yeah i think that the point here the point here is she may have lost  because labor is denial only said to the employer you did not meet the qualifications to hire for work or for a permanent labor certification at that point the  permanent labor for permanent residency you know it does not deal with someone losing a job it pertains to someone going through this three  know i guess you're the office of immigration but a geisha and i don't know how about sorgen eyes but we've got lots of immigration cases where the best the petitioner can hope for is really man to the agency perhaps for example an asylum for the exercise of discretion and we don't require petitioners to guarantee that the law actually have the discretion exercised in their favor means standing just doesn't come up in that context how is that different here well you know i think  that mr goh professes that we that this benefits all employers and therefore i mean all potential employees and therefore doesn't it doesn't matter to a particular  given all of the regulations we cited referring to and alien beneficiary given the fact that the record repeatedly at the agency repeatedly refers to the alien beneficiary of one person and given the fact that it c f r two a four five d is the one that sets the priority date again for a particular alien the date of the application for the labor certificate is what govern individual aliens ability to get or face in line essentially for a green card all of those show that the individual person is a beneficiary here and is affected by th extending the h one b visa later right and her complaints year later is also that she could not possibly because of the expiration of the visa get another job the district court i'm holding essentially the opposite on the indians as well as he spake recognize that you look at it in the context of the provision as well and here that context is part of this three step process and that is why matters of it at this time so we'll take just a few minute recess so that we can arrange make arrangements for the nd case for argument that will be smart sora biden versus barr that will be in recess for just a few minutes