good morning your honour's and may it please the court my name is ashley martin and i represent the appellant's in this matter i'd like to reserve two minutes for rebuttal your honour's adjustment of status under section twelve fifty five a requires inspection  admission or parole there's no dispute in this case that the plaintiff has not been paroled into the united states therefore it is our dispute lies with whether or not a grant of temporary protected status is an admission can you help me with some why is temporary protected status any different from withholding of removal it's essentially a temporary cessation of an action because of situation would you that a person who has been granted withholding of removal would be able to adjust status to lawful permanent resident and remain here forever when i'm not aware of any cases addressing that particular issue but the government would argue that someone who's been granted withholding of removal has not been admitted to the united states but there that's their argument here that we have essentially granted them a temporary reprieve from being returned to their home country because in this case there were catastrophic earthquakes that you know made the living conditions there apparently unlivable well that's what the protection but it is not as great of a form of status as adjustment of status as your terms doesn't contemplate the shield being lifted at some point when the conditions improve in el salvador that yes that is our position that the when and when you get to that position that's when i run into realities so we have the someone who is here in a temporary protective bubble because of the extraordinary circumstances in their country and we don't have many of those united states grants and in terms of compared volume of immigrants so instead what you're saying is well now you live in a country which you really shouldn't be going back to but the way we interpret the law you do have to go back well your honor in berkeley i mean is that a yes or no yes you do it's a no if you don't have to go back if you want to adjust your status not not back to the country  well ok so this person this hypothetical person who's in our country unlawfully vs just you know a country unlawfully and gets married and wants to stay has to leave the country maybe not not maybe not go back to his or her country of origin but has to leave the united states yes yes that is the government's position and your honor i certainly do not mean to intimate that that is something to take lightly or not because then you have to go to some other country possibly illegally i mean the reality of them how how you how is this really going to work you're on a yes i mean there is there it would depend on whether or not the individual in question has a passport that might entitle them to visit another country on a temporary basis but might ask you about the terms because what we're really getting down to in the statute is how we interpret the specific words yes if you have a lawful stay you this is an on immigrant that's what you get under the lawful status as an imam a grant without being admitted right well your honor my my response to that question is this congress has deemed certain groups of immigrants as having satisfied sections while fifty five days and suspected and admitted or paroled requirements and when congress has done that it is this it is used very express clear language that express the alien are now considered to have lawful status as a non immigrant correct so we just answered the question you pose no i don't as i was back into twelve fifty five with specificity and provisions such as twelve fifty five age which provides that special immigrant juveniles have been deemed to be paroled into the united states twelve fifty five i which provides that certain individuals who entered without inspection may adjust without regard to section twelve fifty five twelve fifty five day itself expressly except petitioners under the violence against women act from the threatening just wire me see if i understand it your argument or the government's essential argument i understand it is that the reference to twelve fifty five can mean all of twelve fifty five correct yes and the reason for that is even though it says on  point terms twelve fifty five because twelve fifty four am four cannot logically apply to each and every provision of twelve fifty five i mean there is a provision in the interval fifty five that talks about a  eligibility if someone is seeking to adjust based on a marriage entered into during removal proceedings because congress did not help us out and twelve fifty four am for by providing us with what i mean let's just stop there because that this is the heart of what we have to get to obviously they say well this is for adjusting your status under twelve fifty five so you go to twelve fifty five and you the alien are no have maintained your lawful as a non immigrant obviously just because parts of twelve fifty five would be disqualifying because you don't meet them factually that doesn't mean that somehow the reference to twelve fifty five is directed to some subsection doesn't want that that's that's true your honor and that's a fair point but i think here because congress didn't help us out and twelve fifty four by telling us which subsection it was talking about in the adjustment statute we have to look at the language that congress used and congress referred to being in and maintaining a lawful status as a nonimmigrant that most closely correlates with the barda eligibility at twelve fifty five c two which requires that an appl must be in a lawful status on the date of filing the application and must have maintained continuously a lawful status in the century isn't the practical effect of for the ability to obtain a another itself does not but you can't get a work permit unless you are in some kind of status correct i believe that may be correct but the government does not dispute that c p s is a status right that th question is whether or not it constitutes an admission and what i write i sleep with here is that is that in order to get eligibility to work here you have to be in some kind of lawful stat isn't that right because otherwise illegal aliens can't get green cards and little by your honor i think what i think the government's problem with that is that that's not the relevant question is whether or not we have someone who's been admitted and we have a statutory definition of the term admission but i'm not sure why why from congress as standpoint we need to go so far as to deem them to be admitted if the purpose of the statute is to protect them from removal while they're a bar to eligibility for greater forms of relief but neither should it provide a path to greater forms of relief one example of that is twelve fifty four a part it wouldn't just provide a path that would provide it would be a leapfrog that was a case in which this court looked at twelve fifty five a's reference to inspection and invention or parole and the court explains that what congress intended with that language was to limit adjustment eligibility to individuals who entered this country lawfully by presenting themselves at a port of entry and submitting to inspection and congress intentionally meant to exclude and eventually who entered the united states or repetitiously the appellate he's arguing that with twelve fifty four for congress intended for t p s beneficiaries who enter the united states without inspection to adjust just as readily as those who did present themselves at a port of entry but we do have this problem with this language quote being in lawful status as a non immigrant and it seemed that that's being unlawful status as a nominee in an immigrant nonimmigrant as a defined term of art right so that's a that's a person who doesn't intend to stay here permanently a lawful status is a non immigrant might for example be a person who entered on a work or a student visa and have overstayed that clinton lawful status correct so putting this hypothetical person who came here unlawfully into this particular status it is problematic for us you honor i understand and i can i just i didn't let you get to my question yet there's a case called medina that has come out more recently was in a recent twenty eight j letter and it argues that a student or a person who came to us from from another country lawfully in this status inspected lawful status as a nonimmigrant perhaps it can be equated to having been admitted and gone through the inspection admission process because they have to present themselves right through the appropriate channels to get the visa in the first place and i don't think you've had a chance to respond to that argument when i'm not i'm not sure i understand the question and the question is this case law and from another circuit that has discussed this and has said that for somebody who's in this status lawful status as a non immigrant is the type of person i just mentioned sometimes come here lawfully and has gone through maybe not the inspection and admission process or say but it may perhaps a comparable process because it in sneak in they've presented themselves and and have a taint a visa after whatever kind of inspection process is required do you do you want to respond to that yes she wants you responses to that it again i think the problem there though is that when congress has addressed this very important threshold requirement it's well fifty five a it is done so with direct language and not the sort of indirect route  right and then and then another argument is that it's also useful for the court to look at twelve fifty eight here because twelve fifty four eighty four refers to both adjustment of status under twelve fifty five and a change between nonimmigrant status is under twelve fifty aids and when you look at twelve fifty eight there's a reference to the fact that an alien is eligible to change nonimmigrant status if he or she is a law fully admitted to the united states is a non immigrant who is continuing to maintain that status so what i'm arguing here is that congressman to address both of these statutes kill two birds with one stone and the facts and that would be the explanation for congress reference to nonimmigrant status and twelve fifty four am for i'm your honour's i see that my time is expired thank you thank you an ambiguous subsection f four of the t p s statute says that a t p s grantee is considered in and maintaining non immigrant status for purposes of adjustment and change of status as counsel for defendants just mentioned immigrant to immigrant status it's very purpose is to facilitate somebody moving from not being in nonimmigrant status to being in immigrant status since one nine hundred fifty two when that statutory provision was first in acted that's been the intention to avoid the precisely the situation that's being presented here that somebody who was in non immigrant status would be forced to leave the country and consular process and burden the already overwhelmed consulates with  application that in other areas we talked about with opposing counsel were not withstanding the fact that you've been here for several years under some kind of a status if you entered without inspection and you  married while you were in removal proceedings we send you outside the country to go through counselor processing that's correct that is clearly part one one way that congress can address the issue that is true so the question why doesn't that same analogy apply to somebody who's here under the t p s the analogy doesn't apply because congress provided a specific statutory reference f for saying that for t p s grantees your going to be considered in and maintaining nonimmigrant status which so they singled out that particular group you would agree ms martin no that that that reference to twelve fifty five can't include every subsection twelve fifty five because there are some clearly don't why well it is a reference to twelve fifty five generally now there are a number of different bars that might apply that might not apply to a person but the statutory provision does not specify individual subsections so that's what the defendants are arguing in this case is ok this reference to twelve fifty five doesn't specify twelve fifty five a and therefore it can't waive twelve fifty five however there are getting it from both ways there are going no actually to the specific prongs in each of the subsection yes and the t p s f or carve out is by definition meeting that prong as judge mchugh and i think pointed out that is you are only in nonimmigrant status if you have been admitted in that status that's the question that we were trying to get to i think with the reference to his enough right to do so i mean so what we're sort of in a situation where it doesn't language and well fifty four that the parallel language that you find closest to it is found in see the way here is just that there are several eliminating certain terms and it requires a difference of terms is also clear in c two there is no reference to nonimmigrant there's only lawful status for specifically states th grantees are in non immigrant status not just lawful status and that is critical because nonimmigrant as was noted by the by the judge was is a term of art and nonimmigrant in this saying that it refers to twelve fifty five as a nonimmigrant specifically is in the context of adjustment from non immigrants to immigrant status so that the use of the term is important for us of subsections two per minute issu ce of the necessary authorization to work while they are in this temporary protected status program well see to only applies to people who are working unlawfully and gauge an unauthorized employment creating these benefits for t p s grantees and it is an expansion of what you would otherwise be able to do what we think that's consistent with the language the the defendants are really straining to narrow that very broad language so the language itself applies to all t p s grantees it doesn't only say t p s grantees who are lawfully admitted to do that person decides he or she wants to become an immigrant and that is wants to stay here permanently right so the the rules for somebody who is in current nonimmigrant status who then marries a us citizen for example can apply to adjust as an immediate relative if they're in non immigrant status and have been and what steps are required of that individual so they would submit the i for it by the application to adjust along with their i one thirty application for a visa based on their marriage or if they were changing from one nonimmigrant status to another they were required to submit the change of status form now i think the change of status is a really good point here because the way it would normally work is a person who comes in in non immigrant status is admitted as a nonimmigrant as the change of status regulation requires is in status and applies to change say from a visitor to a student right they get accepted  so they want to go as a student they need to be continually in that status to change status now let's say instead the person is a visitor and there's a humanitarian emergency in their country t p s is granted they go out of status right they're going to maintain yet they have overstayed so they maintain their visitor status under the t p s statute and they could later on get admitted to you dobbin they would be allowed to change to nonimmigrant student status even though without inspection or with inspection we are asking that people who are seeking to adjust their status based on marriage to a u s citizen are imported that same provision and protecti hypothetical if we allow a non immigrant in essence to obtain through it to adjust status from a visitor too to us that is still considered to be a temporary benefit whereas mr ramirez wants a permanent benefit he wants to become a lawful permanent resident with the opportunity to naturalize and become  yes and that's precisely what f four allows that you're treated as an athlete and was not ever going to that sure that it does i mean why shouldn't it be limited to temporary status while they're in the t p s program allowing them to work here to go to school but with the understanding that at some point that status will and and the person is going to have to go back to the country from which they ca and if they want to get into a naturalization tract and they have to do it the same way we would expect anybody else to do it if they were immigrating from and in effect one of the first answer is they are these are people like mr ramirez who have been here for fifteen years who are married to a u s citizen but we don't have their i want thirty of through t p s programming congress would just as easily or the attorney general at the time could have just as easily a year and a half after granting t is said conditions have improved the country is recovered from the earthquake that t p s program is ended and now all these people who are here temporarily have to go home that is true but congress has also stated that it's not going to create only a shield  for it's going to allow a path a sword if you well to allow you to give you the benefit to either adjust to lawful permanent residence or change nonimmigrant status quo you would not agree with the analogy that i offered to ms martin that this is the same as withholding of removal if withholding of removal had another statutory provision saying anyone cranford withholding of removal shall be considered to be in nonimmigrant status for purposes of adjustment or not change of status then we'd be looking at the same thing but here congress carved out a distinct path but if a person  eligible to simply change to on a nonimmigrant status because they wouldn't be in a valid nonimmigrant status and so i think in the end the withholding and remove does not give them a new label correct like the label you get here under twelve fifty four i think it's just different so it's different i might say it's an apples to oranges and you don't have the label that we're talking about i mean your new label that you get under go fifty four is maintaining lawful status as a non immigrant ye  he's still an inadmissible under eleven hundred two because he arrived here illegally so even if the you treat him as inspected and admitted isn't there some waiver on it in admissibility so what is your position on the government statement with respect to that so there are two points i'd like to make on that the first is that as the medina somebody admitted in an immigrant status or otherwise or an immigrant the regulation at two forty five point one similarly defines lawful status as admittedly as a nonimmigrant the second point is here we're addressing a program where every granted has to have been found to be admissible or had their inadmissibility grounds waived so if they entered without inspection like mr ramirez the attorney general waived that ground also they're subject you don't even need to reach the issue of am i actually admitted rather you're thing no so you don't have to meet the actual admission definition that was a secondary argument that we made argument was that they would be deemed exactly so by it's a legal fiction that they're deemed admitted right so the question isn't have they actually been admitted for all purposes of the i a e a for purposes of twelve fifty five adjustment and purposes a twelve fifty eight change of ramirez is that it would be odd to make him leave the country and go back to el salvador to have to come back into the united states and the government says well he doesn't have to go to el salvador and you agree with that i think that's incorrect inception it's not a tradition it's not a normal route no i can't just request that i'd rather go to canada than say fly to africa in order to renew my order consular process i have to show exceptional circumstances that's in the statutory term in order to understand these people are being protected and could having a path that permits them to adjust status as non immigrants as inside the us as is the rule for non immigrants generally before you sit down how many people are we talking about here do we know how many people there are in the us i don't know off the top of my head so if for salvadoran t p s i believe it's around seventy thousand individuals who have salvadoran t p s but keep in mind this provision applies only to those who have an independent ground to change or to adjust status this is not a blanket grant of adjustment to all salvadorans this is if you're married to a u s citizen and have an immigrant visa available to you you can go through that process in the us just as if you were in non immigrant status as a force us now when there's just one other that's true michael i want to hear from you about because at  least under one aspect of the government's interpretation it would in effect make the people in t v s status who have these relatives they could it just would really make them ineligible by the government's reading of square the statute could you explain how that fits together sure this is the point of medina and flores and judge silly below that effectively the government's interpretation of the status of the statute renders it effectively effectively meaningless and that almost no one would really be able to take advantage of the statutory provision in terms of having to leave the country return to a place where there might be some humanitarian emergency triggering certain bars and the very fact that the seat who provision that they're arguing is is waived would apply really only to a much smaller hypothetical group of people that we could a struggle to find to really think of who would be able to benefit from this extraordinary broad statutory provision the narrow way that they've interpreted it i imagine somebody who enters on tourist visa say from syria from syria the situation in syria blows up right away you apply for t p s you're lucky enough to have your t p s granted before your tourist visa expires probably not going to happen or student or student visa it's true if you're on a longer student visa and and then at some point only apply under defendant's reading contrary to the plain language we think it only applied to those who entered in non immigrant status and who fell under these other categories as benefiting from non immediate family members here like an n h be one of these  in kind of the on a dual under two different status so you could have you could have both of those that is correct thank you thank you we used up a lot of your time with questions so i could give you a few minutes f from c to our people who were either admitted or paroled into the united states they have a non immigrant status their country is designated under the t p s program and now they have the ability to adjust on a basis other than as an immediate relative so that would mean those who have a path to adjustment based on an employment fisa or a family relationship that is not an immediate relative relationship one example of that would be the spouse or child of a lawful permanent resident another example would be the adult son or daughter of a us citizen or a lawful permanent resident off if you have an immediate  relative well under your interpretation well no no i know i have i apologize if i was in the sleeping in that regard that's not that's not the case you're better off if you're an immediate relative because you have no problem with twelve fifty five c two to begin with he went you do have no need for an exemption from that in the end eligibility grounds and however if you are not at mit is good or paroled into the united states regardless of whether or not you have an employment the said immediate relative fisa you have a fundamental and eligibility to adjust because you don't satisfy it's well fifty five days threshold requirements and your honor is the court is obligated to interpret a statute in light of its purpose that c p s statute clearly has a very limited purpose of providing only a temporary shield from the execution of a removal order with regards to a period of time spent in t p s the t p s statute clearly contemplates only that that time will not serve as a question that was also posed to your colleague and that is not necessarily how many people are in t p s status at many people with media relative like mr maris do you have any statistics on that who would in your view be able to take advantage of this temporary shield and be able to adjust those with immediate relatives thesis here and i don't have any statistics on that all right thank you appreciate the both the arguments and the very well done briefing on both sides here for a very interesting question the case just argued ramirez versus