thirteen we have had exactly no time whatsoever to present our case so the ten minutes that we have here today we are very appreciative actually bird grateful to have this opportunity now in profession this appeal the clerk ask question many questions but one of the questions is is this a complex case no it's not a complex case but it is a very important case very very very important case because the underlying issue is will the rule of law arguing to challenge what we assert is deliberate purposeful and illegal government action now question here is the state department going to be allowed to violate with statutory immigration scheme statutes do aggrieved immigrant applicants have no remedy no remedy for illicit government action when a reasonable basis at least a plausible basis is parliament to stay or to their argument can do whatever it was and we can say nothing about it now the substantive issue here involves one day and you become the state's publication called the visible and now in the briefing in the record we explain the importance of the visa posen and we actually made this one of our hearing exhibits exhibit one because the court may not be familiar with this publication so we provided the whole thing we've tried to focus you very focused on the small part of this piece of bulletin that we're focusing on arguing about in these proceedings but we thought you might like to see the full seven pages of this publication which comes out every mo and all we're talking about here all we're talking about is one day third preference employment based china other workers as the name for one day five three b three that is has the statutory criteria for eligibility for so called employment based immigrant visa applicants if you're a foreign national and you want an immigrant visa you look and see if you can qualify for want of these five categories the what we're talking about is b three and this commonly called third preference and it has three subparts it has skilled workers turned out there were actually other countries that had different  a lot of your briefing was china's the only one that has that story and she ation if that weren't true would that affect your legal argument how would that affect your legal argument so i don't quite understand the question where in truth it wasn't just china if for example doing so and they can do so we submit they have no legal justification for doing so they have no factual justification for doing so and if the state department disagrees with our analysis of the statute then as your other points out why is it the other two hundred covers the entire world enjoy parity them over three categories as the indians had different cut off hates her other workers and the professional unskilled workers inside the same differentiation you complain about in the past it may have had that in the past and it may have been justified you have to we have to talk about a specific time and date today it's not india enjoys the same color of your position it has to be exactly the same at all times i'm just trying to understand what because this seems like a very complicated scheme and so i'm trying to understand how what your basis for arguing that they are locked capital a has three different eligibility criteria skilled workers professionals and other workers there's an overall for the headboard allows twenty eight point six percent of these for that category ok there is no difference between those three old ability categories and what's the share in theory of the workers who get one hundred percent professionals who get a hundred percent skilled workers who get one hundred percent in theory congress has not differentiated between those three categories so maybe hopefully it's understood here that the cutoff date is very important because the farther b line are skilled workers than they would get over the whole share that get the whole share don't practice that's not going to happen because if you have a given productivity whatever it is you're going to have a share you're going to have a certain share that goes to skilled workers a service or that goes the professional workers in a certain group that qualify with the other workers so your concern here that the numbers are different or just that they haven't explained why the numbers are different  in the world and then they determine ok do we have one of these available to satisfy the demand in the case carvers again has given us the statute b three a it doesn't say ok i'm over those three categories those a certain percentage that we says nothing in say a is the bar on national origin discrimination he says nothing in that in this paragraph shall be construed to limit the authority of the secretary of state to determine the procedures for processing of immigrant visa applications or the indications or such things there are process with respect to locations we've already held this is a full commitment agency discretion so i'm wondering why he doesn't party or national origin discrimination  there's no that that that analysis was correct it was it was on one it was no party by statute used to have the same cut off date for those two categories so at work they're not challenging  said these dates that's a process tail and we argue that those dates as set violated statutory tax and hurt our client in the process and as in that latter process argument dates under the statute that's their argument right or wrong that's their argument and you cannot be free made sakshi requires same day as ted this particular subcategory act it's hard to think of anything more discrete the math i would say that argument fails as a matter of war it doesn't address the charge of discrimination claims or just them over our basic claim is this but out of all the countries in the world only china has been singled out for the disparate treatment in terms of was born in charge of the state department singled out tell us so are the circumstances of this case if you're born in china you get put into this extra suffering shall we say but that's the  was the best expert in the world there's no better expert than him however all we're talking about again is this one day and why is it different and we say that that explanation is not all that difficult but no depends on an employer certifying that they have a need for this particular employee and can't can't meet that need by using u s workers it was a great year have now gone by since that certification was made  an employer that's really been waiting eight years for just her or is there any update on whether there is still leave on a basis on which she can get a visa apparently she's speaking and i actually got her number practically speaking eight years  i can imagine the employer still hasn't filled the spot in the interim well yes of the employers the want to sponsor mysie that's a valid question and at the end of the process we have to prove to the state department it's a reasonable requirement that the employer still needs this person but this employer how to answer your question your honor the this employer is located in the relatively rural north carolina area and it's hard to find americans willing to do this work which is working in a chicken processing factory and they have an ongoing need and ongoing openings of that persist year after year after year after year old though this particular case actually might i might have misspoken there's another plan to rural ohio but anyway it's a rural area that i have states and they have an ongoing need it's just hard to find americans to do this work which is not considered high status or pleasant so they do have ongoing openings i thank you all we asked for again please give us our big court and let us work through this with this thank you