arguing about the regulation and c f r because it is well established and it would be obvious off it wasn't well established that a regulation of an agency cannot create or destroy jurisdiction in a federal court congress gives federal court's jurisdiction is there some reason that i missing here the reason i think he seems to me we ought to be talking about statutes well the reason we focus so much on it is all the cases focus on i think and so all the cases either soon jurisdiction or they find that there is jurisdiction because this regulation interprets so maybe mistakenly though on the second half there's an argument on both anything that would give a court the authority to go back in and a manned an agency certificate well the statute itself transfers everything over to the agency right but it doesn't allow an actual means to amend those newly granted authority to the ins so there is a previous regulation if it gives the attorney general but the power to correct errors exactly how it used to give the court the power to correct errors right and the attorney general then delegated it to ins which is now us the i r s and so need turn in general is chosen not to correct this error exactly issued certificates to the water the law now is the agio only correct the roma stakes it won't allow correction if it was anybody else's mistake exactly but at the same time someone who got a court issued set certificate can use three thirty four point six we're arguing that the gap created by three thirty eight point five and three thirty four point six is illogical there's no reason to read it to exclude people like mr hang who have agenc definitely a logical but i don't see where the court has any authority i mean even though we've said that the court retains the authority to revoke or only the court can revoke a certificate even that has to be at the at the motion of a u s attorney under certain limited circumstances there is there doesn't seem to be any role for a court to play here under the current statute and that's definitely how some cases have gone i think we're here because so many cases have gone both ways sure and the pub hussein in the district court of minnesota finding so clearly that they wanted to fill that role here for a lot of what i'm having trouble whether it's with that logic of a court or or the argument here is you just heard the argument in the other case about you know how what authority the court would have to retain modification authority over its own order but you're like one step removed because human agency order and i was having trouble was i'm missing something finding a statute that would give the court authority to come in here i can read the regulations but they're not they're not jurisdiction granting so we're not really in a position where the regulation is being challenge right and so the jurisdiction comes from the ion a which now delegates authority to give naturalization certificates to to the attorney general delegate it to the ins and now us yes but the jurisdiction itself is from a an interpretation of that statute that doesn't contradict it but instead interprets how they're going certificates right so they were these regulations were not inactive with respect to certificates that were court issued prior correct that's correct and so we have so i mean it seemed to me that the challenge to this would be more in the nature of a regulatory challenge which may have course be too late at this point in terms of the intersection of the then i regulations and the gap and what was meant to be or not to be but that that there is not a jurisdiction to challenge those in the federal court and there there's definitely a reading of that that could be and that is why so many cases  am missing something here i'm just missing maybe you can educate me on this it used to be that the district courts naturalized citizens we had ceremonies the district judge would at the end of the ceremony sign an order granting the naturalizations as a result of the district judges signed an order people would be naturalized and then errors could be corrected and the whole rule sixty error correction mechanism applied under fourteen fifty one twenty years section fourteen fifty one eye of the statute and then congress changed the whole deal and they said the naturalization sort of be done by the attorney general not by the district court as some district courts continued to do kind of ceremonial naturalizations but they were the real thing and then for the error correction in the  section that used to give the district courts the ability to correct errors without concern for whose errors they were said the attorney general now has the power to correct errors then the attorney general issued a reg saying i'm only going to correct my own  s i'm not going to correct errors from other people now that seems really unfair to me because between the foreign accents and the non english speaking and that the fact that in a lot of cultures people know their ancestry but not their date of birth at it it seems unfair but unfair doesn't mean illegal and it seems like for congress and that's all she wrote and for the attorney general that's all she wrote and i just can't figure out where we get the power to do anything about it because it looks like it's a regulatory and a discretionary decision by the a g not to correct errors that were innocently made by the applica t and from our position we don't want to read the regulations so narrowly as to cut out an entire group of people that like you said it just be unfair so that we have two ways of reading it how do we read a more liberal way we read it is in a word to right there let me get him in front of me and i'm sure you have been in front of you yeah they repeatedly say the words by the court or within the court or return it to the court and so those words of course are going to be there because at the time they were written there was nothing besides court issued naturalization stripper gets so there's no way that it would say by the court or an agency and so now that after it's been transferred to an agency we have the choice to face look that was the only way it could have been written because courts were the only thing for deemed to be justified for the naturalized person later alleges that the date of birth which the applicant stated to be his or her correct date of birth at the time of naturalization was not in fact his or her date of birth at th says boy if that's the date you gave us at the time you got naturalized that we don't care if it was innocently wrong tough that's exactly what immigration lawyer has been talking to us about they've been published respect to an individual case where it's been denied that would probably be the way that or is my doing if there were a case law supporting amending it under three thirty four point six in obviously there's a issue with your distinction that because so many cases either go around that assume it or find in favor of jurisdiction i think lawyers don't want to just rely on arbitrary and capricious arguments i know i mean i'm not saying whether it be successful or not but the whole argument that we're having here is why it might be unfair you fit these together and it might leave some people out in the cold but if a court doesn't have jurisdiction just to go in and correct an individual certificate it seems to me that somehow this is really an administrative challenge to the agency action as opposed to trying to get jurisdiction in the federal court assuming there is no jurisdiction if there is you know then you've solved your issue but we're still trying to struggle with what where would that jurisdiction come from and if there is no jurisdiction or it would seem to me attorneys what it should be bringing dual challenges to this situation so if there is no jurisdiction is there any other resolution for your client if there is no jurisdiction i don't see a resolution she has gone so long without being able to get a driver's license and what really makes it such a burden for her and such an arbitrary and unjust result is that the real i d act tells states we can't issue and we know that we know that the real problem here i'm thinking the immigration lawyers need to get congress to make a technical amendment here i mean that would be let's think it relevant provision in the real light the act that you're relying on the real i d act in your briefing you just event of a non match of an s s a with the identity document no idea should be given now d m v can issue procedures to deal with now to establish identity you can use a passport her passports based on her now physician's certificate which is based on her green card no way around that for her you can use a certified birth certificate from the state of birth it's not foreign birth certificate so for someone who's born abroad it's only their immigration documents you know we heard in the other case that sometimes social security resolves these issues does she have a route through getting the social security administration to change her birth date then she would match well the thing is that the source cutie administration found made a determination that they wanted to change he of birth so they believed her and they say your new documents show that you were actually born five years later than you thought but now that they've made that determination they're not going to go back on there's no going back in other words she's now she's gone the issues your argument is tight it results in just a lot of arbitrary unfairness terms of people's driver's licenses social security whatever  is there any solution of this other than a congressional amendment i haven't really thought of any but you're on your honor the plaintiff to get into this problem on her own well people do get into it on their own  all sorts of ways although in in some places when you ask somebody their data birth they'll just say before or after some important event and sometimes it'll be kind of family lore made  up what they do know is who their recruit great great grandfather was and who their distant cousins are and in the united states we all know our date of birth  of revolution records get lost anyway and stories get mixed up i think this lady was chinese so that the transfer to taiwan would have been a problem for some and staying in the mainland for others in terms of maintaining records and accuracy is there any kind of solution through the agency i don't know if there's a solution but i do want to point to out i'll be redating birth when you come right down to it none of us have direct knowledge that's why they to birth through hearsay exception but you are either lying about it but but this is not quite the case of a person who innocently had no idea what her birth date was and came to america and then ultimately found out from like like the previous case the family bible or whatever they haven't seen the record that i submitted is that curse that her sister her sister in law said it was nine hundred forty four that her green card said it was nine hundred forty four so she's known for decades that the that the birth dates of nine hundred forty four and in fact in her own immigration papers she wrote that out that she and her sister and her sister in law each explained the purported nine hundred thirty nine date of her birth was used in order to get her into school earlier so this is not somebody they were blaming her for her fault when she was four years old or something and as nothing to do with when she was four years old it but it's hurting her school or whatever it was she was she got a passport at age twenty six right apparently well she was certainly an adult yes when she got her passport yeah that's when she lists her date on her taiwanese passport that she used to come to the u s as well e g if i flew in no she thought it was one thirty nine forty four comes later when she gets her naturalization lets leave her green card says nineteen forty four that's a green card not her her past her not not her taiwanese past or a bell i mean it illustrates the problem here is that the date sort of goes back and forth between what she wanted and what she wants there there's never going to be administrative finality if people can keep coming back and and making changes to their name or to their date of birth long after the fact you social purpose as with criminal convictions you'd like people to spend their time in prison deciding not to do it again instead of them filing in the c b s petitions if they did that but here i don't see the value well there's another value in that is that it cuts off the obvious temptation of some people to play the system sure it's like you get your social security earlier we have for example that's a that's the most prominent example of saying one thing in their application for naturalization and then coming back later and saying wait a minute but suppose you that's if she wants to be younger  to be old she wants to be older she wants the nine hundred thirty nine days but i don't think it matters what doesn't matter now because her social security well that she wanted to be younger when she a plot she's going for a natural before she found this out occasion for this petition to amend her certificate a lot of years ago wasn't wasn't this something where she really always thought she was born at one time and then her aunt said she was born in another time or something like that well so this is about the chinese revolution right so this perfectly illustrates why the agency has a reason for same let's not continue to have people come in here and say well i thought it was this but maybe it was  what's the reason it's just another file you look at the file and you go one way or the other it's not just another file you are really the you know the agency is flooded with applications for siloam for green cards for naturalization and at some point the agency doesn't want to issue an open invitation for people to to conjure up new dates based on their convenience based on here this was before the rail idea that you have this regulation contrary i drank only in effect here post real i d that you wouldn't have had before and when you say conjure up for their own convenience you're if there's no jurisdiction i don't see where the equities really fit in where you have good equities and no no jurisdiction so unfortunately the corrections not made do you know now when people apply for naturalization do they get a warning that basically is the equivalent of the real i d act that if there is this discrepancy can't be changed you might not get a driver's license you might not get any stated  obligated to list i'm just asking whether it happens i'm not giving a legal view on that i'm sure what i don't know that that exists i don't i don't suspect so but they do senator probably of perjury that doesn't matter here though because there's no suggestion that she was trying to commit any fraud and knowingly gave a false state simply was trying to point out that they're told that they have to take this document very seriously they're not listed with they're not given a list of all the just to address a couple of those points i think we talked a lot about jurisdiction with respect to whether she frogs don't we put a different date of birth here it was pointed out i think really importantly that she made herself younger so she wasn't screaming social security benefits and in fact there's a place if we get back in a court to make that argument so we have to prove that that we that you know she can show that there's sufficient basis for the state of birth if she can't show that if she's shows that it was pretty by fraud she can mentor naturalization certificate so the argument here doesn't really have a place about her switching back and forth that this regulation was actually totally done with in two thousand and eleven and so there's no one else who can do what she's doing anymore she this is a six year old case she's probably one of the last ones you'll ever hear about doing this appreciate the argument of both counsel this morning the case of king versus district director is