proceedings for its beneficiaries and allows them to work in the united states pending dangerous conditions in their home countries but as this court has recognized it is not a court to blanche free pass for adjustment of status to lawful permanent residence the district court in this case held that t p s inherently includes an inspection and admission and cures all deficiencies for adjustment of status even for people who enter the united states all lawfully without an inspection and admission but that finding is inconsistent with the plain types of the statute and this court should reverse it also before we talk about the plain text of the statute do we have jurisdiction do we have a case or we found the denial  motion to dismiss with the remaining two an agency to constitute a final decision such that we have jurisdiction your honor i believe we provided a case in the briefing but the basis for this course jurisdiction under section one thousand two hundred and ninety one is because the district courts did nial and did the litigation on the merits now i don't know that there's a particular district court in the west in the western district of texas that at the same thing but the district court relied in the d c circuit   i believe that you cannot address the issue directly but i'm not sure your honor i would have to rely on the briefing that i that we provided to the court but what the court indulgence i can refer to it or well that if that's that you believe that that's the d circuits position and that's the basis what's the logic of it the logic of it is that there's nothing else to do in the district court nothing that would changed the district court's judgment such that the only avenue for the government to change it will be to appeal to the district court and even then that is even the case with this particularly the case with the district court did because not only did it issue an order on the motion to dismiss that ended the litigation but it also ended judgment date in docket so it effectively closed the case and there's nothing else to do but to appeal if the government wanted to challenge that decision ok thank you thank you your honor to assist the court with the analysis of the issue at hand i'd like to provide a very brief contextual background on t p s and the purpose of the provision at hand the genesis of t p s stems from congress's intention to assist chinese students to be able to remain in the united states pending the dangerous considered to be and maintain lawful status as an immigrant what that does is it bridges the gap for people that might loose that is absent t p s and are would be unable to adjust status for example a student visa hol enter the united states or a tourist visa holder or anybody under a specialty occupation enters the united states with a proper inspection and admission while they are in the united states with proper lawful status and have been inspected something happens in their home country that it would be dangerous to require them to go back if that status expires t p s bridges the gap and allows them to continue to be considered in lawful status such that if they qualify they will be eligible to adjust status it's a bridging in the gap analytical difference between the two approaches of the a meet and the and the plaintiff there is a difference your honor and the difference is noted in the district court's opinion because the district court's opinions reached its decision on several immigrants and because of the non immigrants it computer error by assigning an admission those are different analysis and i would address them separately i would also note that nothing in the t p s statute reflects that it is an absolut prior disqualify nexen it is particularly telling that when congress intends for people who enter the united states without an inspection an admission to be able to become lawful permanent residence it does so explicitly for example for you victims of domestic violence or people who are cooperating with the prosecution of crimes they can adjust status without having been inspected and admitted or paroled similarly t v is a beneficiaries of victims of trafficking and special immigrant juveniles are deemed program old under the statute and are able to obtain permanent residence despite having entered the united states awfully for purposes of lawful status but not admit it you give examples of parole in place in asylum recipients but do those people have lawful status as non immigrants and does it matter well you know this the lawful as is not immigrants is a particular is the language of the text certainly your honor well status and not have been admitted or where you can be admitted in later on status that means that the t p s statute while it covers and refers to section two of fifty five dollars it addresses it provides a benefit for a specific in the americas argument here you can't be a nonimmigrant and not have been admitted for example the example of that sure so you visa beneficiaries they are not immigrants and they are able to adjust status and they have not been admitted tv's  beneficiaries are in the same situation victims of trafficking in addition the fallacy in america is this argument is that because t p s refers to the term nonimmigrant they accept that t p s beneficiaries are not actually not immigrants but they say the congress created a legal fiction that it imputes an admission for the purpose of adjusting status but the phallus the main fallacy in that argument is that you can be a non immigrant and not have been inspected  address both of the requirements to adjust status which is to be and maintain lawful status and told so to have been inspected and admitted or parole what section two there with the t p s statute does is it mirrors those requirements the bar for not being in a lawful status and why because it does so almost exactly the same it says that you have to be unlawful status of the time you submit your application and that you must also not have failed to  prior problems and deficiencies would be inconsistent with the reasoning of those cases is what you're arguing we have not addressed the issue our sister circuits happen there's already a split so whichever we go we're not creating a split is that correct that is correct your honor this court has not addressed the issue explicitly but it has to deal with situations that are very similar and the time has come for that where this court is facing the issue directly in this hell you know to our sister circuits have found contrary holdings and they've said it's not in big us but they've gone the opposite way now it doesn't necessarily mean that something's in big us but do you do you want to address the ambiguity issue that whether it could be  ambiguous and if it was then do you believe that you still prevail sure your honor but we believe that the court does not need to reach an ambiguity determination to rule in the government's favor and we also believe that the circuit courts have compound in each other's error now the serrano court from the th circuit found in the government's favor of its interpretation and two other circuit courts that th circuit and the six circuit have not the district court's decisions i have followed have just compounded the error one over the other if the court were to reach a decision that the language is ambiguous it should still defer to the agency's interpretation because the most recent agency interpretation is binding on  immigration judges and so therefore we believe that it is a correct interpretation and deserving of chaff from deference even of the court would think that it would not deserve chevron deference it would still be deserving of skidmore differences because it has a power to persuade well reasoned in fact it is consistent throughout different administrations inconsistent since the inception of t p s the agency has interpreted t p s like this since one thousand nine hundred and ninety when an opinion from the general counsel at the former ins hell travel out of the country and get admitted on their way back well the foulest that's in the argument that i would be absurd to require people to go back to their countries that they were just in a dangerous in the st place but they don't have to go back to their honor they have a few hours drive and come back and then they would be ok that is correct your honor they don't have to go to the original countries that were originally doesn't need a dangers they can go to any country of their choosing and i would like to know that this happens all the time it is not uncommon for somebody to obtain an immigration benefit to have to leave the united states and be processed through consular processing in order to obtain that immigration benefit for example people are barred under several of the conditions in the adjustments that is most have to do it from the outside unless they obtain a waiver certain student visa holders must have to do it from my side as well in fact even people that marry u s citizens during removal proceedings must have to leave the country to come back to the united states they leave and then they're not allowed back in that happened it could be a situation your honor that's not an issue that has happened in this case but there is a procedure to make sure that there's less uncertainty with that because people in misrata losen or situation can start the con processing from within the united states they can do the preparatory work here because you're three hours down the road and back or is there something to this processing someone who comes in well there might they will be subject to the in  and mr rodriguez sellers ana is not eligible bright he might be eligible he can start the process here in fact he can submit a waiver from within the united states and have a better indication of whether it will know i mean he's lived here in the united states for a long time with his family with no criminal history etc right yes your honor my time is up but if i may answer the question yes please yes so he has been living here for the for a long period of time but he has an avenue to adjust status and it's to nabbing you that is even puts him in a better position that other people have to move or equities that enter the country without inspection and admission and parole i have a question if someone was a t p s person but they went they went out of the country and then they've already gone and come back are they now they've been admitted in so they are not in this group of people anymore because they have been admitted i mean you could have been you that assumes that you come to the country one only one time i'm just talking about people coming and going so some people are t p s have already been formally admitted because they've gone in the mean time right yes so they would satisfy lawful status that prevent them from adjust status but that's not the case in mr solution those situation because he is not subject to the bar as you see can to adjust status as an immediate relative to a u s citizen so that bar doesn't apply to him but to continue answering i will cover the background facts and the skinny will cover the statutory interpretation issues was born on doors in sixty eight years old and he has lived legally in the united states for over twenty years he entered the united states without inspection and ninety seven due to hurricane mitch the country of unders was  designated as for temporary protected status in january of ninety nine and by june of that same year the appellee had applied for t p s he's remained in t p s status ever since going through all the renewal updating all his information and paying all the necessary fees mr rodriguez married his u s citizen wife in december of two thousand and nine and in july of two thousand and fourteen his wife filed a visa petition on his zero is classified as an immediate relative that's important in two thousand and eighteen u s c i s to night as application if found he was not eligible for just meant because he did not have not been inspected in a argument again mr were doing a solo zone as president and he seeks this permanent residence so he may remain in the u s legally with his u s citizen wife where he's been for the last twenty years but s would still be in place right if he did not get this if he does not get this that at the current time t p s is still in place it is a it is a discretionary benefit that gen be removed depending on what he's been here on that benefit for a very long time and so that's not right which begs the question is worthless a definition of temporary right well i mean you could say that it was meant to be temporary and it's really once you come you stay on t know i'm not talking about the individual i'm talking about the countries countries that have been subject to yes and that has been removed in the last year or two yes so it's a fluid on doris we don't know about currently that has not happened with wonder if there have been several times throughout its history that it has been announced that it was ending there has been in recent time when it is said it was ending then it was extended again and there's some other litigation that  got to stay put in place for agency action opposing counsel says there are other avenues can you can you can you discuss  an individual who did not go through a port of entry but yet and may have accrued unlawful presence if they marry a u s citizen they can adjust status inside the united states if they did not go to a they can do the initial part of the process seen in the united states but must completed it to consular processing in their home country it just has to be in the home country it can't just be go to go across the bridge to this really isn't a key part of thank you opposing counsel argument here you source adjusting may have to it in real terms and germany russian given by their argument on their side is it doesn't really work that way would you were you basing it on that in practical terms it has to be back to honduras as opposed to canada or mexico or someplace well if they have to go back to their country of origin it kind of gets to hold humanitarian benefit no even if they're not in status at that point there i don't know that there was a plan or something outside what what i understand is that that immigration customs enforcement ice has made has indicated that it would if people lose their t p s status that it would begin to place those individuals into removal proceedings but the priority remains the people in criminal not currently there no longer those priorities are currently anybody who's not in well they may if they happen to be with them but if that's not they're not going out to find people who are but that's not the priority processing i think the barrier is the fact that the individual would need permission from that rd country to to be able to consular process and in many cases would need to have a visa from that country in order to to do so i don't have any cite for you i'd be happy to supply it for you afterwards if if you would like it but but it's that permission that they need from the country that makes it difficult because  in most cases it's very difficult and assert country is not willing to just give permission for an individual to consular process through their country or appreciate their reaction i sort of i agree with you it doesn't change the the statutory interpretation at all and our argument is that congress chose the language very specifically challenged it specifically said that an individual is  p s status and for the purpose of adjustment of status over a very limited person purpose individuals to be true to be considered as being in and maintaining so those are two distinct words that need to be given different meanings and in order to be in law lawful nonimmigrant status the individual must have been inspected in admission admit it because with that with a few exceptions which i'll talk about in a minute that that government counsel raised can't it satisfies it so it does he do about the members of the armed forces in the asylum recipients that we were discussing earlier i think they are unlawful status even though they're not inspected and admitted i think your question was argument we are not saying that all t p that this provision provides all t p s holders with an automatic right to lawful permanent residence what we're saying is that those individuals being deemed non immigrants or placed in the shoes of a non immigrant if a non immigrant were eligible to adjust the t p s holder would be but not all non immigrants are all difficult to adjust and this is why there's really no conflict between going to be eligible under the other the other requirements for adjustment are under the bars to adjustment because not all non immigrants are eligible so the place or shoes of a nonimmigrant the nonimmigrant in melendez for example was not eligible because he had his period of unlawful presence was counted against him and there's a bar to adjustment where there's any period of unlawful presence situation the individual was a a criminal and so nonimmigrant crew men are barred for but are just generally part there's a bar against adjustment for individuals who  blanche for adjusting every t p s holder that t p s holder still has to demonstrate that even as a non immigrant he or she would be eligible to adjust status actually think it didn't and it didn't address this issue so i didn't need to dig into did the term consider and in the same way i didn't need to to look at what does it mean to be unlawful nonimmigrant status it concerned the bars under fifty five dollars see to it did not and the concern whether or not being in lawful nonimmigrant status it because it there's a progress prerequisite for that's being in and to the distinction between being in and maintaining lawful nonimmigrant status to be in lawful nonimmigrant status an individual has to have been inspected and admitted in that's that's the mention they just said shall be considered as having been admitted in lawful status rather than being in well i think that what congress was trying to do was really achieve several things through this provision and it did achieve several things and had it just said that it would not have achieved the other purposes those purposes including included both dealing with individuals who are not in nonimmigrant status by placing them in non i be in on immigrant status those individuals who are at risk of losing work in an immigrant status but were at risk of losing and therefore not maintaining by maintaining and then rd in dealing both with adjustment of status and change of status within the same provision so by doing it just way the court the congress really achieved multiple objectives that they certainly congress is aware that you know people might have on doris before they adopted this t p s and if they wanted those people to be eligible for adjustment it would seem like they'd be a little more clear on that rather than this kind  of round way we're driving in that circle to get to this point it would have just would have done it directly you know how to do that it well i honestly i do believe that they did it fairly directly but because they and i'm sorry i'm out of time you may have the government would restrict this provision to only individuals who are in an immigrant status and at the time they receive t p s and then at risk of losing it but doesn't deal with the difference between in  maintaining if they're already in nonimmigrant status then congress would not have needed to say him and could have dealt with them simply by saying maintaining it also conflicts with the structure of for travel for instance and that then two of them have restrictions on what the t p s status grants they for instance or that alien is not eligible for or d it when it says the alien is not s ok and so they would treat that th one differently last question can you address if it's in big us do you lose i don't think we do your honor because i don't think that the government trip for a number of reasons including the most recent one of just explaining that the sub that the arguments are batteries and you think it's inconsistent it's not a rational it's not a reasonable interpretation doesn't make sense of all of the words thank you thank want to briefly clarify some points st it isn't correct that people in misters centers situation must have to go back to their country of origin they can choose any country of their that they want to go to for cancer processing and this happens all the time based on typically where they people can get the st interview where it's cheaper to travel to cheapest and when they're able to do it for example brazilian nationals travel to mexico all the time to take immigration benefits they go to reno so they they've been immigration for years and they have they can't ever get the appointments and things and they won't work with them i'm not sure that that's correct your honor because there are situated differently from people that are in this country with an inspection an admission that just a mere application would trigger removal proceedings it wouldn't in their situation because they have the t p s protection they can start the consular process in from the united states and they can choose whatever country they are able to go to will be cheapest for them happens all the time with people different nationalities going to reyno as the cold war here that that shows that congress intended to sort of deem them having been inspected no your honor because the requirement for admission and the bar for being professing to be unlawful status are different concepts analyzed this issue as a waiver of the bar some adjustment of status or whether t p s satisfy scenes and mission requirement it doesn't matter because t p s is not an admission because an application for t p s is significantly more lenient than an application for an admission at a port of entry there are many things to the government does not consider to grant somebody t p s that would have to consider for somebody trying to enter the united states for example if it be in a public charge somebody that is a public charge can obtain t p s but they cannot enter the united states another example i'd like to give is still a ways somebody that comes into the united states as a stowaway is completely and knowledgeable to a law to adjust status but they might be able to get t p s and be protected from having to be removed to their country of origin so to conflate both and consider one t p s to be the functional equivalent of the other would create a loophole in immigration hold by which people that are otherwise ineligible for an immigration benefit are is a temporary statute and beneficiaries are notice that it is a temporary benefit because the tax correct your honor and it's not like it would come out of the blue that all of a sudden they are subject to removal they are on notice for it and if they have been here for twenty years they are notice that this could happen the explicit text of the statute says that a c p s beneficiary shall not because excuse me if the judicial stay goes away it does happen with honduras this isn't an imagined concept you caress it it has said this about him doris it's about a one hundred it's pending right now in a court somewhere but if that sta if the president's announcement is no longer barred by a judge i realize they may have to fill out some forms but mr saul was on a could be removed or asked to leave maybe more politely but nonetheless has to leave the united sir i've been on this court two of years we have a ton of these appeals i understand the removal process it's not that they pick him up and throw him out the door but nonetheless he's going to removal and the ultimate goal of which is to remove him i mean that that's that's wait here that's why he's trying to stay and try to adjust his status that he's not subject to removal which is a good idea to start doing a concert of processing before that removal process begins your honor he's able to do it from the united states immigrant to that of a person that is and then they look at purpose but we're not going to look at purpose today why aren't those st two reasons reasons that run counter to your argument today to the th circuit's already determined if i understand correctly your honor is asking why is that why is the t p s such a refers to the adjustments and is entirely it doesn't cover an admission i'm asking why ramirez is wrong