the there's nothing new in there it is not a surprising document it exemplifies the issues that have been in this case from the start the opening paragraph of that attachment states that they have authority to circumstances under which those can be revoked but one of the things i do ask for from this court today is that because it in nature of the investor visa and the discretion of the tourney general certainly can't conflict with that with the mandate of congress is that you start making this investment and then you come back two years later you take english and permanent residence and you come back two years later and then all these issues can be raised there's absolutely nothing in that document which should have been raised at this point that is all material have no authority they've never provided any authority for revocation of their furthermore even if they had you already under congress the structure of the investor visas they have to wait till two years before they can come back and examine the investment to see if it was  underlying application they keep it in abeyance for five ten fifteen years until it became reality again and i'm saying the way investor visas are set up in the way you apply for adjustment status under the investor these is the way it's set up is until that administrative at this moment it's not clear either why does this appeal sort of preserve their their their their status i don't know if this appeal preserves their status i know they have another lawyer working on some kind of status for them i don't really i'm of the district court on alternative grounds because to the extent that the needle and the pens and applicants have any remedy at all what they probably need to do and i don't pretend to and have them look at whether what happens to them in the meanwhile are they going to be thrown out of the country well but you're asking us to affirm the dismissal on the theory that they can pursue should be pursuing their remedy in fact well through the appeal to the district court from the adverse a new decision well but there's a question different final now that the revocation is final under ninth circuit love is certainly permitted to take it to the district court and have this record look at the record that was presented to the agency and determine whether or not discretion whether it was arbitrary and capricious in determining that they had not met the criteria for this and so but in the meanwhile which was part of their their concern and understandably what is there any remedy for an emigrant in doubt circumstances miscues an investor for them to preserve their status in the united states to preserve their stake in this restaurant so that they can while they're pursuing sort of maintaining the status quo until they've exhausted i understand you don't want to do it as an exhaustion decision but that's part of the problem here at least i'm trying to get my arms around them so what is what do you think will happen under let me just  get extensions of those permissions to be in the country and i did commissions that really isn't a legal status so it's not like they're losing something that they have they didn't have an application pending but they don't have that is until it happens until it is granted which is why the agency carefully looked at the underlined when it's looking at the application context of that in order to have a foundation because of course they still can't get it if they don't have a visa and these are have to be looked at again that that's sort of a tricky issue as to whether the i looks at it or whoever it is actually looks at it typically you have and i don't make representation of behalf of the agencies here but my experience with the fear that if they went happen is they would file something before the immigration judge saying we want to stay this proceeding until we get an answer from the district court is there any possibility i mean you don't have to bind anything but is this the kind of we have a mediation service here at the court if things can be worked out to resolve things and i'm very happy to provide that facility is purely voluntary and i understand the government has institutional interest but i know that the government status i have no knowledge of these other factors he brought up if the matter of being able to pursue this in front of the immigration courts i don't think is true i see many issues in the in the law and it's certainly