that suggest some sort of procedural or regular here frank this maintains you never see the article in ever receive the decision so you certainly looking at this you're saying you have a decision that stamp after any use you no longer exist doesn't receive it it's stamped after a time after which that it was you no longer exist right and then when you look at the r f e it basically says give us documentation to show that you know your sons or your sons and that and there's no relief left as the dish a quite said to give now i guess i don't understand why you didn't amend your complaint to make different arguments i mean it sounds like you're challenging the ability of the decision or wanting to appeal from it there the review of a denial based on whether or not the proper procedure was followed and whether or not you know there with there's enough evidence to support that decision by the agency that is in there now admittedly it's a little muddled but if you read through it you see that the allegations are there and that the cause of action is there and if we're talking about jurisdiction which is what the court found that establishes jurisdiction and there's enough there's enough basically between the administrative record and what was put in the complain i think to survive even you know a two of the six so i think that the claim is there they say we're saying is that he never received decisions and then years later discovers it through this litigation and it comes from an agency that doesn't even exist at that time how does department of justice issue decision in june two thousand and three when it stopped existing with the ins stop existing in march two thousand it just doesn't make any sense how can that happen i mean in that the ministry of record isn't clear there's no explanation in it and this is what we're also talking about required or is there could be an explanation we might need extra record evidence to help build the case here of what actually happened but as far as you know your client never received the r f e never received decision and then through the course this litigation's is produc press put into a whole system review on their entry and exit i think there may have been a little bit of fear about bring a claim coming forward and was under the impression that he basically walked away basically that it was going to be i'm not entirely sure why he few right there and then you're basically need some additional documentation to prove the validity of the parent child relationship which could have been gotten so i mean it's not it's not a case where like you know sometimes you'll see  though the three children are still abroad half of his family is here with his wife and their main children are still abroad and i'm not entirely sure they are yemenis obviously there's a civil war going on in yemen and many people that are lucky enough to maybe flee to they were living in saudi arabia for a still over there yes they're still they're still outside the country you know pursuing a mandamus anymore i don't think mandamus is really i mean i think within like the fact that even if let's say there was no decision we're still seeking it's an open dispute i have no explanation how an agency that doesn't exist issues a decision right maybe that's something that can be explained through actual record evidence and supplement to the ministry of record and i think that all of this shows that the district pending yes that's yes the other thing to be relied on this forever and this happens all the time ok but the website was still showing that the case was pending he relied on that for a while when he st came to our office we were time this was the beginning of you know two thousand and three is when the pardon homeland security is st created and they're from yemen and they were subject to a lot of controls both leaving the country and coming into the country those programs were litigated to the supreme court and it's reasonable for a person that's unsophisticated in not really knowledgeable the law and you know to be afraid to come forward about stuff like this when they've already availed themselves of the proper procedure had gone halfway with it so and you know i don't think that necessarily eventually going to get an attorney turning look into a case for you when you see that you can look at it you see that it's pending right i don't think that necessarily mandamus mike i'm still just at your complaint and just trying to make sense of it the preferably leave it i mean you asked you know as to mandate that the  petition so i'm not sure what relief you're seeking we're seeking we're basically we are seeking a review of the decision and then there is this factual dispute of we maintain that because that decision wasn't it was issued by me just that doesn't no longer exists you know it just doesn't make any sense it just doesn't make sense and i think that's a fundamental problem in this case that cannot be glossed over of saying oh you know whatever right now i mean that's a real problem that it is you see doesn't exist what is more arbitrary in terms of government action that agency that doesn't exist issuing a decision that has such binding and powerful determinations on a constitutional right and rights under the statute for us citizens and that's really i think where we are what we're looking at here and why we have to have agency that processes i'm with thirty petition on my i should know that this argument that plaintiffs are making is completely new this was not argued before the district court and it was not argued in the briefing filed before this court  so government would x that the court not address that argument has not been briefed the government has not had an opportunity to respond to that argument and i'm quite frankly it's not before this court properly and the dish accords not aaron dismissing plaintiff's amended complaint place us lack standing plaintiff's claims are moot as plaintive seem to now concede and also the court would not have erred if it had dismissed the complaint for failure to phold alleged yemini adjudication scheme government's position is that places like standing and both of these arguments st plaintiffs like standing in their notice or claim by of notice argument simply because plaintiffs appointed to no statute no regulation that the agency should have followed that would have provided better notice the agency provided notice to the address that the plaintiffs provided in their filed i wondered and there was a note of an address in dearborn michigan and that's the address that plaintiff claimed to have lived and that's the address that i'm the government sent notice of the requests for additional evidence and notice of the ultimate decision on the at one hundred and thirty dollars s plaintiffs have not argued that that address was incorrect that they never lived at that address that the agency sent notice to an incorrect address and again have pointed to no statute o regulation that would have required the government to find where plaintiffs were allegedly living at that time the court is is having to assume that plaintiffs were no longer living at that  court by the dell that is also distinguishable from the situation here because in that case the agency had notice that plaintiff had not received the our fees in the decision because the archy's in the decision had been returned to the agency as under livered that has not happened in this case there is no evidence in the record that the are these that were mailed to plaintiffs in the decisions that were mailed to places were returned to the agencies under labor so the agency had no reason to for the file is closed your honor once a decision is made on the island thirty the honor as a government has conceded there seems to have been some some oversight in terms of what the website showed regarding the status of the petition but what what is also notable that the website did also state that in december of two thousand and two the agent had issued an r f e to plaintiff's requesting additional evidence plaintiff do not address that issue they claim as they claim that they were relying on the notation on the website that states that the petitions were pending but if they were truly relying on what the website said they would have also been notified that the agency had issued an r f e in december two thousand and two questing additional documentation in order for places to establish their eligibility for the island thirty petition and i should also note that the website has been updated and there was there was some internal discussion as to whether or not i'm an update address the ending at all and standing as a prerequisite to bring claims before that court and before this court places focuses on luna's which the district court to focus on what the district were awful had discussion on places  inability to to prove that they had standing to be before them and i believe that that is the biggest issue here that plaintive simply like standing to bring these claims or use parent w ability that the court could have had granted them and in this case and all of their claims that is just simply not the case some remain on to the district court and then the the district court let's say remaining to the agency the court cannot order the agency to provide notice because the agency provided notice the agency provided notice that was most reasonably calculated to reach plaintiffs and that is notice sent to the address that plaintiffs provided the agent that the court cannot of birth place of had one date of birth her to his children in these positions and had a completely different date of birth and his i forty five application and plaintiff did not respond to the requests for evidence to clear up that a consistent the agency provided plaintiffs with an opportunity to provide documentation that would have allowed them to possibly be issued the i went thirty's set that no indication to the address the pla