this court should reverse the district court's decision for two reasons st the district court but to doing gauge in judicial review of the administrate procedure act without a certified administrative record and nd even if that record can be salvaged from the document dump the government did in this case its decision underline decision violates its own binding memo it is arbitrary and capricious i'm going to look and i'm the the problem you have with the record i don't quite get this there was some stuff in that record that happened after the decision was made and that was thrown in but how does that prevent you prevent the court from looking at the documents it should have looked at and making its decision i didn't get what i didn't see the prejudice if the over inclusion issues here were a handful of documents the complaint from the hey b s i filed for that i don't think it would be an issue your  be able to segregate the stuff that us c i s relied on based its decision on and we could go from there but this is an egregious over inclusion that agency points to ten documents approximately thirty pages that it claims it's adjudicated relied on the record record that they provided here was three thousand four hundred and sixty seven dollars pages one hundred dollars times larger than what the agency claims it actually it's decision maker actually relied on and if you look at their brief and where they claim the factual support for the record support i should say for their jurisdictional decision it gets all over the board your honor it's documents from extensive parts of that record where they claim that only ten documents the decision maker needed reason i asked the question is there is no suggestion that the administrative record was supplemented with documents that predated the jurisdictional notice but which were not part of the agency decision making process right you're  of the agency supplement the record twice and what it did essentially was an redact portions of redacted documents that originally provided they file the record i filed my motion then they go in under a back to two documents  separately to provide the evidence to support their claim to rationale for the decision this is exactly why can't the pits overton park in the classic administrative law cases in seventy say that the focal point of additional review is the administrative record and the administrative record is the documents that the decision maker i guess at the heart of the question is how did that harm let's assume argue window that you were right the record is full and fat and has more in it than it needs so what you're not saying the district court are focused on the wrong documents or that he was misled by you know this fulsome record where's the harm i think the harm is that we don't know what the decision maker actually relied on and that is that constitutes the actual administrative record if they if the decision maker in the asylum office in virginia did not look at some of these documents or consider them directly or indirectly they should not be in from the district travel with this and if you have a case where it's one of those cases and we don't know if the place is dangerous or not dangerous that person is going to be tortured not tortured in a home and to document and you have to decide what but in this case the only issue is whether it was eighteen or not right respectfully no your honor the the decision here is whether an agency that is immigration customs enforcement or customs and border protection a took an affirmative act to terminate unaccompanied alien child status that is the agency's expressed rationale and they're finally see action here but that somebody looked at the document so i was eighteen he was put in an adult and canton now that's an affirmative act that's none affirmative act to terminate various different protections that once you are assigned the status of an unaccompanied alien child that follows you and the agency in two thousand and thirteen went and cabined its own adjudication said look if one of these other sister agenc that this person is a unaccompanied alien child you don't look behind that unless or until there is an affirmative act terminating asylum or u s c status it doesn't say if there are facts or acts inconsistent with u s c status it says an affirmative act terminating that status and even go so far as to say adopt that don't look behind it even if even if the documents indicate there's no longer unaccompanied alien child that's what their own binding policy says and they do not dispute that that memo in two thousand and thirteen is indeed binding on the agency and the administrative procedure act when an agency violates its own binding rules we have a violation and that's what happened here  i think the statute applies and i think that the agency's interpretation of that statute not done through notice and comment rule making here admittedly done through a policy memo that it does not dispute is binding they have cabin to themselves which agencies have the jurisdiction to do in the authority to do they can say we're going to interpret this statute or we don't buy the policy statement your honor i believe that if you are we chevron bound by the policy statement no you're not i don't believe so let's suppose the policy statement was at war with the four corners of the language in the statute we follow the statute ignore the policy statement and reach a conclusion right i think that's right under several not yes is this policy sta inconsistent with the statute that i don't believe so you're only were in a i believe it's they have it's the statute is somewhat ambiguous it says you get exclusive jurisdiction if they're an unaccompanied alien child what the agency chose to do it's actually a resources your honor if you read the memo it says we're not going to spend additional resources on nd guessing our sister sister sister agencies decisions when it comes to unaccompanied alien children and that's exactly what they've done here they have gone back they saw that he was a u s c term to be a u s c and they simply went beyond that and it's unclear what they actually considered again that's our st argument but when the agency violates its own policy memo that is a violation of a i fully expected you're out of the government come in and argue well this is just a policy memo it's not binding on us and you can see that in my brief trying to predict that argument that's not the argument they make how do they violate the policy here they go beyond the face of the determination of a u s c it has there's no affirmative action term well that of course is the question what do you need to do to establish an affirmative act and i think that a sister agency has to at least recognize that the person has been a a legal guardian or an adult who's under eighteen once he's in the united states and with custody of his parents that sure mission's already been made but the transition made at the border upon someone arriving ok if you didn't have a parent and here in the united states he may be able to be classified as a separate immigration status of a special immigrant juvenile which accords different rights ok he was on a campaign at the border that's right as parents with respect to whom there is no legal parent or guardian in the united states but he had parents in the united states but your honor if i don't understand how he qualified as i guess they made the decision at the border and they didn't know about the parents in the united states you know i think the documents indicate that he told them his parents were in charlotte north carolina and they came to my remain confused said rectus you know you said council that the government was relying simply on the fact that they subsequently placed your client into an adult detention facility they say more than that though do they not they also suggest that that act when combined with issuing a right to thirteen constitutes more than enough to establish an affirmative act i think that's right isn't that enough and i to thirteen is not an action document it's a report your honor and if you look at the  thirteen that rely on here don't say anything about terminations of any status is not inconsistent with the law and their policy for ice to take in an unaccompanied alien child and not terminate u e c status we are assuming the agenc i think that it wasn't on the radar of ice your honor and it's not on the radar that it's now the rate of terminated you know as practitioners we need this guidance to rely on to advise our clients and if there is no active terminations we don't have the good morning may it please the court should top for united states citizenship and immigration services it's my honor to be here but practicing in georgia for most twenty years my st time your thank you the court has gotten to the heart of the matter there are several things that have been argued by my colleague here that i would like to just make clear and hopefully be helpful to the court st of all it is not a law it is not a legal status to be an  nice question then that person is identified as a u s c for purposes of placement and other arrangements to be made there is no immigration benefit tied to this and lawyer goes through the voluntary departure angle instead of seeking asylum how to get this lawyer i don't know your honor in the record it states that his parents hired that lawyer mr oxley he did eventually at some point make a claim for ineffective assistance two thousand and fourteen until january how does his regular new a c who are there who don't actually have parents in the united states do they get assigned a lawyer sure i mean that's part i  think i mean i think it depends on the circumstances in this case mr in some way that people who are in detention as you ac's ordinarily get lawyers i can't speak to every single case but that is part of getting assigned an of having an inadequate or an over inclusive record if that were true he was not prejudiced under the a p a the record is all things that were current could be considered directly or indirectly with due account to prejudicial  document and the other added some additional pages these were internal e mails and a internal e mail and a back to document of conference minutes a conference call minutes internal minute plans council wanted them agency conducted student legends to ensure that not only the district court and mr salmond had everything that they wanted needed or could have considered in order to ensure that there was in fact a certified administrative record and that the court did not have to get involved in unnecessary motions practice here there is nothing but diligence on the part of this agency to ensure that there was a proper record but i also wanted to address that in terms of the ten documents and the possibility of a concession there was no concession the ten documents established age this is at the nd step of the inquiry as was and i can explain further if the court has any questions but the agency under its policy conducts a two step inquiry the st step which is the heart of this issue if there is a prior adopt that determination in terms of jury for jurisdictional purposes and not go further into the inquiry in this case even though mr stammer on was more than eighteen years old had that not been previously terminated perhaps his prior u e c determination could have been adopted but because it had been affirmatively terminated violation of the statute the policy furthers the statute it provides a more as my colleague said a streamlined approach it actually provides a better resource for the adjudicators if another agenc indicated that he was under eighteen noted that he was a u s c for purposes of placement processing and he was placed with his parents and he was placed in full removal proceedings him again this time to arrest him incident to that they issue another right to thirteen as a result of that classification he's put into another detention st into a detention facility this time as an adult as an adult detention facility that's the  could i splays a minor an adult facility not if it's a u s c there are minors who are accompanied them but might go into like oh the only way a minor could go into adult facility would be with a parent or a guardian is that right who has i don't want to answer this question improperly where you want to say or asked the question your colleague suggests that this wouldn't constitute an affirmative act because there are multiple circumstances under which a minor could be placed in an adult facility i understood you to say no the only circumstance would be if the minor was accompanied by a parent or a guardian am i wrong is there something beyond that just a point of clarification and then you are correct a u a c would not be placed  into right because they're on a company yet so oh minor we have to is an unaccompanied child can never be placed in an adult facility while at a minor would never be placed into an adult detention facility unless they were parent no your honor a minor would never be i'm sorry but you're asking an ice facility so no a minor would never be placed into an adult detention facility knowingly my colleague and i actually have other cases where age is a disputed issue but to clarify a known minor would never be placed into an adult detention facility there are family facilities where adults perhaps are together with min petition to be brought to the interview which is what he's asking now on appeal essentially is asking to meditate petition that if there's some relief granted he's conjecturing that he won't be able to attend a asylum interview and he needs to amend his hay before the titian at this juncture so all we have is the challenge to the decision of the agency the jurisdictional decision and i would like to clarify that the policy was followed and it's under that policy that the jurisdictional notice is valid and i have a lot more to say if there's any questions i can keep going but i think i think we are clear at this juncture that the jurisdictional notice on its face rationally connected the facts that were found with the conclusion that was made and there is no arbitrary and capricious decision here and we ask that this for short points on a company deal and children don't get lawyers if they're removed proceedings they don't get lawyers there's no program statute regulation that provides them counsel at the expense of the government just not out there that the records in here note that mr sommer own after his picked up in charlotte along with five of his other colleagues with no criminal history were taken to york south carolina york south carolina they would call an adult detention center but that's just a stop along the way to a more protected permanent facility and so our concern here is that if this court affirms and finds that it's an affirmative act to place in any adult attention center anywhere along the way that making that trip from arizona that mr summer own made all the way to charlotte north carolina if he is stopped in say ocilla county down and also down the little disk of georgia as an adult attention center completely lawful to keep him there for one night two nights while they're transporting him and that would be an affirmative act that years later one when his immigration petition or the higher it goes to try to apply for asylum at c i s they may now say nope you're u s c satis was affirmatively terminated by ice because they placed you there for one night the nd point your honor the record issue it's very important to discern the different subagents of v h s here we have customs and border protection we have citizenship and immigration services and we have immigration and customs enforcement they all have their own set of documents that they rely on they have their own individual records what was presented to the court in this case was all of that together in one big pile we don't know what citizenship and immigration services eighteen or may have reunited with a parent they recognize a situation like this and they say we're not looking beyond by ticket there's no dispute about age here there's not your honor no sir but there is a dispute that whether the agency ever terminated his u s c status and i actually don't