enter the country properly and then ran the risk of going out of status during the time they were here yes because they didn't want to go back to china yes absolutely that is our position that people in one of the early country to report of entry it nevertheless is the case that it later begin to apply to people like mr sanchez here who came into the country illegally correct absolutely are ok and i guess by then right i guess then the crux of your argument is that that the people who come here legally do get t p s are going to be able to get the relief of  fits better but you want to borrow a blanket bar for people who come here illegally who later get t p s can't get it because by definition of coming here illegally they were admitted or par  st that you are investing sorry inspected and pearled or admitted and then they have a number of other requirements and so yes a person who came here illegally was not inspected and interpol is not going to be eligible to says and one the secretary of homeland security may adjust the status of an alien admitted to the united states so that would be a person you'd be so who was admitted but then there's a pre print the c s or otherwise provided not in status close got t p s before the start of the overstay because if they got t p s after the story over say they didn't maintain continuous legal residence absolutely your honor and so it was another it was another value that you think was another point that you think renders  but i have colleagues that constable i suspect can help me with that so i guess what my thought is this i would like an example of the value if you can provide it to one thousand two hundred and fifty four a f or serve at the time of its enactment if apologize if i didn't make clear that that is who that's going to apply for that student who's on a student visa from kuwait who's graduating you know from snow versity and their student visas expiring i'm not exactly sure about the dates of the quake but if you'll let me sort of pick let's pretend t nonimmigrant as a student from kuwait because the t p s keeps that student visa status for them so continuing after the august expiration so just to make sure i trace what you're saying what you're saying is for persons who are already inspected  mid or pollute and their time in the united states was coming to an end and they needed another reason to have valid time here before they apply for l p r t p s this statute gave them on building to do that in june but you know they need to maintain their lawful nonimmigrant status through the completion of that if their l p r status isn't granted by august st which i think was in my example when their student visa expired they would need to have left the country in order to not be an unlawful overstay and so it's people who may have as you said to me judgeships they would be at risk of overstaying and have not yet applied or people who have applied but wouldn't be able to maintain while staying in the us because their lawful nonimmigrant s is expiring before they've been granted it said and so i assume that the reason that this this would be useful to such a person is because this temperate temporary protected status can be delivered by the government faster than l p r status is that is that kind of the implicit assumption that if you could just apply for both and they would have the same timeline you would probably pick no cars that were perfect says is a different situation you're trying to shield people from having to return to a country where due to natural disaster or other issues it's not necessarily safe or but the applicant themselves would say ok am i looks like i'm running out of time should or should i should i try for adjustment to l p r status or should i try for temporary protected status i assume that the answer is well if they're if they're roughly here that maybe they just try a p r but if they're running out of time they can go p r won't be granted they would go  lot more time on that again they could be applying for a p r and just choose to see t p s because should they or l p r be denied they don't want to be returned to kuwait in the middle of a desert storm or is going to see it so it's it's a lot easier to get citizen and then seeks adjustment of status yes absolutely and so to judge phipps question someone who could get t p s if you were the quaint student and you're overstaying that might not actually be able to get l p r because you can get t p s with certain would make that actually it was a quick get cleaned gets cleaned up you know if we send people back right away might be different when you keep extending in extending extending it and they have relationships that we marry so i appreciate that but i would make r status you are applying from a consulate from a foreign country adjuster is the exception for people who are here under certain pieces under certain lawful nonimmigrant status that they wouldn't need to return and i think i statute is clear that is an admission we feel we think it's in a deeming statute and we think as a judge phillips was pointing out that there's no way to give proper due consideration the congress identified a problem that is a recurring problem with both continue arm complex which is in the statute and environmental disasters which is in the statute and wanted to be able to quickly protect those people water here obviously this as considered as being in awful stannis there's no requirement for an admission to be to get t p s no no certainly not that's why we have people like your client that didn't g the fact that they're so it is so so look let me just make sure trace argument if i understand your argument this is what you're saying you're saying the phrase shall be considered as being in if it's not construed to mean a has no meaning whatsoever that's part and so so what we would have is we if that's the case then we have a choice it seems we have a choice between saying we're going to i guess violate the canon a superfluity and say that has no meaning i guess that that's one option if that truly has no meaning and so what that's that's really argument is that being in must mean for protected status under this section shall not be considered to be inconsistent with the granting of nonimmigrant status under this act now to be granted nonimmigrant status you have to be admitted most people are physically admitted at a port of entry however in this case we have a construction and constructive admission if you will and there are admissions within the law namely adjustment of status is a construct of admission now if you take the government's position if you accept the government's argument here and deem that my client has not been admitted obviously his status cannot be adjusted at that point he's in the position to have the council process to leave the country which is what the government propose however that's the entire point of the t p s statute for people not to go back to a country that's in armed conflict or has suffered a serious natural disaster so you go if you look at congressional intent clearly the congressional intent here is to let somebody stay here and do that versus to have to go on the cover of swearing or stay here they just don't want to do it just the status or not long as they say that it can't the justice to understand why he keeps getting these extensions he's he's staying for a while i think based on the construction baseball on the statutory regime here it was not the intent of congress to have to to make them go home to a just to get their immigrant visas versus the just exasperate ones if you look at the entire well but there's a statute that suggests that adjustment of status requires admission or parole you agree with that but use that's where you say your client was in fact constructive constructively admit it you're ok it all comes down to the admission does your honor and the only court did has quote unquote ruled against sauron on the th circuit and they actually didn't rule against us because they never actually six got to this argument they never government here now in that case what we said about admission redounded to the benefit of the petitioner here it would seem to go the other way against the petitioner but what's how do you get around what we said about admission and honey those words that we've been discussing here falter for four are clear dealing shall be not maybe shall be considered as being in status mr sanchez shall be considered  any situation so i think that's i see my problem thank you mr ree that the difference is that this is a deeming provision and that was not a deeming provision and who buy at by deeming an individual of you use of the word elling tailing lawful status as a no never grid but that doesn't answer the question of whether he was admitted or pool who what he doesn't need to be and here's why i would argue that he wouldn't need to be and not is because by being deem to be in law how united states and it sets court the conditions under which they are admitted i'm many other references throughout the immigration nationality act indicating that non immigrants are admitted to the united states and shorey can it will just slow down a little bit deemed a nonimmigrant the individual has to have been admitted and we think that with that congress chose that for a number of reasons st of all the examples that the government gave us to when eighty four and one of which is the provision on non immigrants because the congress basically threw out the i and i it has not been consistent in how it is dealt with different populations so for instance one of the examples that doesn't talk about the admission of non immigrants it says they should be considered as being in as being in and maintaining lawful status as a nonimmigrant  have just said some be admitted it just means admitted that's still not good enough for l p r status because inspection is kind of its own process that spall with i suppose by admission so being in means submission what you get out of this statute what you get out of twelve fifty inspected and admission are required as prerequisites for l p r status so you just lay out for me how being in can mean not just admitted but inspected in admitted but inspected issa different concept than admitted in so admitted maybe being in means admitted but i don't know that being in means inspected you weren't saying that being in means inspected are you no i'm saying in order to be in  yet in order to be in that status otherwise that individual would not be in that status so so basically what you're saying is being in forget in maintaining but being in lawful status is nonimmigrant that being in your saying is a damning argument that must mean if it means anything at all inspected and it made that's right ok because otherwise that individual  immigrant status in fact it didn't involve money immigrant status at all and so in that sense it's very different it was a different stance you and how the use of admission or did or did not make sense within that  the other point that i wanted to make which is that this provision to us not be automatic permanent residence for all t p s the individual is considered to be an nonimmigrant status but not all non immigrants are eligible to adjust to permanent residence they have to meet all of the requirements of adjustment one of those is an inspection an admission which all non immigrants meet but the others are that they have to have a qualifying relationship that they are it's easy it's very easy here and they have to so they have to have a visa that's available and a immediately available but they also have to not  why doesn't i'm trying to say that it does he cannot mean the same thing because some people can be in lawful nonimmigrant status who were never inspected in admitted that's the you and the t v so holders generally in immigration law again then this cour probe into the same status you had before and so it doesn't share the prior period that he was he was not be unlawful sex he entered the united states in one thousand nine hundred sounds like a subsidiary argument that he can't satisfy the continuous lawful status unclear but i think we would still say yes that c to his a bar to him we don't concede that he meets the requirements of section k so i don't read that to be what our brief said i think she cited page thirty five i don't see that in our brief we do contest that he would still fail to meet the are exceptional case because the exception in k is that you are present pursuant to a lawful admission so even if parole counted parole is not an admission right you're inspected in minute or parole so you still wouldn't get the and fifty five because the t p s provisions for parole clearly state that you are returned to the status you were in prior to the attorney general giving you discretionary parole what was that status so the status he was in before was really here illegally buckley protection from being removed to his home country due to t p s temporary protection i see so that that's in your view that puts him right back to where he is which is he somebody lawfully present in the country pursuant to t p s that temporary protected status yes well i think we would terminate in terms of some one who is not lawfully present in the of being in and maintaining would be superfluous if it were triggers in the mission is to suggest that poll fifty five c two when it was to both those requirements didn't need to list both of those requirements it's about being in at the time you apply and maintaining that status  very helpful and the court will take them out of