decision to refuse jurisdiction of the trauma nation of his refugee status by the united states citizenship and immigration service for the following three reasons first of all the administrative procedure act provides for judicial review of final agency action for which there status and a subsequent denial of his adjustment status application these decisions may need to be reviewed never new in immigration court or in any other administrative form for the jurisdiction stripping provisions of eight us c twelve has pending currently before the immigration court an application a defense of application for asylum and this is a form of defense from removal is he able to seek adjustment of status in that proceeding is not not at this time   the operations of terminations of refugee status and a subsequent application for asylum are completely different the only reason he's applied for asylum is because it's a secondary parallel legal form for what for which he can try to seek relief from removal from the united states however in the event his asylum application is ultimately approved he would subsequently have to wait a year then apply for adjustment status and then wait five more years before he would be eligible to apply for example for naturalization currently it is refugee status is reinstated and once he becomes a permanent resident of the united states really just a status application he's deemed to be admitted as a lawful permanent resident of the united states as of his admission date as a refugee may sixteenth of two thousand this would make him a need eligible to apply for naturalization or yellow that we're not trying to necessarily make it possible for him to immediately apply f to at this moment i'm just asking about well they can well the matter can be further reviewed by the court of appeals at some later time terminations of refugee status cannot be reviewed by the circuit court and li because there's there's been no hearing on it the in order for the u s c i s to terminate refugee status they have to go through a specific procedure the procedure involves making a determination whether mr or mr john a was a refugee at the time  says that i can find in a case this is the contrary i have but i can find in case this is your client is wouldn't be entitled to further review on that issue the regulations under it c f r to a seven point nine state that there is no appeal under this chapter from the terminations refugee status by the u s c i s right there's no direct appeal from us yes we all agree that the the issue into removal proceedings if you lose there then you can come here why is that wrong in onesies in removal proceedings all he's doing at that point is trying to defend himself from being removed from the united states the immigration judge has no jurisdiction let's say you lose ok and you get an order from the i j a you can encode the board correct on that you can go to the birth of the immigration appeals on the removal issue not on the terminations of refugee sign ok but then you come here and i guess what judge clay's asking and i'm wondering too is at that point why as part you know of his petition couldn't we look at the terminations refugee status that started this whole thing and let me tell you i don't think the answer regie just read because that says there's no appeal under this chapter whatever which is a chapter about d h ass it's not a chapter about d o j which is where you are now and it's not a chapter that says we can determination refugee status at the b i a level right so you're going to lose on that there are why can't you come when you come here why can't you say i should not have been put in removal proceedings to begin with because my refugee status should have been terminated there's no record on which the court of appeals could could review it well i mean what's the record on which the district courts are reviewing it or creating one is that needed to create a record that he'd need to have his day in court i mean i i don't know it would seem like you could whatever basis i mean he's saying that when they terminated the refugee status they didn't have any documentary record whatsoever that's exactly what we're saying so he goes in for the interviews and then he just gets a letter in the mail that said well the interview that they conducted with it where they were supposed to under agency case law determine whether he was a states that he was in a didn't ited states in refugee status because the applications that were submitted on his behalf by his family showed him to be a minor child the agency later find out that he was not a minor child at the time however eight u s c eleven fifty seven c two states that the spouse or child of any refugee shall if not otherwise entitle to admission as a refugee in his own right be granted the same status as all that goes to the merits of founded fear of persecution on account of race religion nationality membership are you saying that he was a refugee in his own right not just in a derivative stat absolutely he should get argued that now i mean you know he came in as a so you know  e better term a derivative refugee right yes but now you're saying he should have a chance to show he's a refugee in his own right the law provides for that all right that's just helpful background thank you your hon point at that point the foreign nationals get an opportunity to apply for any uniforms of relief in order to afford to keep forte ssion which is the reason why the i j a any relief available in immigration court would not have any bearing on the mr jones refugee germination status but i mean they could they could say that he's entitled to asylum which is a card apart from the sort of waiting periods that you mentioned i mean isn't that exactly the same thing it is not exactly the same thing asylum is if i may is on the government to prove the mr john a was not a refugee at the time of his admission in two thousand and eight to net it out you're you're concerned about the loss of certain procedural rights rather than the substantive remedy of being able to stay here or eventually apply for adjustment of status is that fair there's more to it than that but but that is the gist of it ok all right i'm not trying to and that's not to be dismissive of it but i'm just trying to understand ok thank you tha court in this case and two separate circuit courts of appeals have found the individual individuals must pursue their administrative leave for the immigration judge then take their appeal to the board of immigration appeals and come up on a petition for review before the circuit choose to do so in order to raise the claims of this particular individual sixth race for two reasons one and i think it's instructive further to take a look at what exactly has and has not occurred in front of the immigration judge in this court there is no final decision that you can review didn't review the refugee claim quat refugee claim the i j a reviewed whether he was a refugee just for purposes of determining whether he had valid entry documents that 's true i know so but i mean to the point remains that that mr howard is point would remain that even if the i j a comes out the other way and says actually did have valid entry documents early there's nothing that precludes him from raising that petition for you here if you could if the precise review he wants is my refugee status as a derivative refugee status should not have been terminated at the time in the way it was because certain procedures were not followed or because i wasn't allowed  residents of those have a company documents all of those have been submitted to the district before the immigration judge or could be should they choose to they can create the record for the immigration judge and then they can appeal that to the but abrasion appeals and come before you so it's not true that there is no there wouldn't be a record would be the same record that would be before the district court if this were an a p a case the jurisdiction of the district court to pursue and on that point and just it's important to distinguish between what mr  that state says and what he was and he was then it's a derivative refugee he did not apply for refugee status in his own right at the time it's unclear why he or those applying on his behalf chose to do that and that's what was done so he was never admitted as a refugee so he would have to renew this claim as of today whether it's an asylum claim whether it's a refugee claim and that's the same standard of proof essentially so the argument that next ninety nine perhaps were different country conditions perhaps they were different arguments you could have made to apply for a refugee in his own right question about that can you point us to a regulation that is he would be able to switch the character of his refugee application from derivative as it was i guess  ninety nine to now refugee in his own right you understand what i'm saying and he wants to argue i guess in the district court that yeah i mean my aunt's not my mom but i was i met  can point out is that he did make this i go for u s a s twice and they found that he was not eligible for refugee status in his own right so i don't know the specific regulation that says you can't say grandfather yourself from nine hundred ninety nine going forward but i would say that even let's assume there was a regulation but once it's not a one way ratchet with asylum or refugee status if country conditions change the tourney general or his designees can terminate status because country conditions of origin he may return so without a regular stands to reason that no there's he's not grandfathered in just because he applied at the time for a different status and if i may i just want to respond to a couple of points that  mr howe they made on behalf of mr jones so yes we do have it in the record it's already the immigration judge specifically speaking to the point of well you are something channel in the court of appeals and that's twelve fifty two b nine and it's instructive to look at the background of how mr john ended up and remove proceedings so when you assess terminate his refugee status by regulation they must institute remo further the immigration judge and to correct i think something there might be a disagreement about he can and will and should apply for legal permanent resident status in immigration proceedings it's true that right now he doesn't have status upon which  and by statute rather than have peace millett a geisha where the district court has some aspect of the applications or immigration status an immigration judge addresses other aspects of it it's all channeled into the immigration courts and taken up on appeal to you guys eventually on a one thirty seven suggesting that he cannot raise the precise form of relief that he's seeking in immigration court and therefore this court of the district court has jurisdiction over the issue i just like to point out that that case involves arriving aliens the relevant regulations that apply immigration judge he will be able to appeal that claim to the board of education appeals and he had to come before you guys on a petition for you or any constitutional and statutory claim can be reviewed including the claim that the technical claim that he should not have had his refugee status terminated in the way terminated i would submit that it's really that that review of that specific procedural issue isn't really the crux of the issue wants a view of whether he should in fact be considered a refugee or the river refugee he never raised the refugee raise but now as in the form of asylum application before the immigration judge he can raise the claim although i seem fruitless that he should be entitled to give every refugee status but that's all it would be reviewed if the court again all that will be channeled into the courts of appeal on a petition for review so it's really not an issue of jurisdiction stripping it's really just an issue of claim channelling because the same fifty channels this species of claim to a later date and one specific petition for  your honour's i would like to highlight a couple of issues here they were raised by the government but first of all whether mr john was a sinner or saint with respect to representations he may or may not have made that doesn't mean that he does not necessarily have his day in court the agency of evidence day and from the agency that's for sure and he can come here right i mean he'll come he will come here i'm sure if he doesn't get  really right that would be on the on the supper claim that would mean that his is efforts in the immigration courts to avoid removal he lost and he would need to go to be i e and subsequently here however the point is this is that there is an agency denying terminating is refugee status saying that he never brought that up so a spontaneous he was not required to it was the agency that was required to make that determination that never happened and because that never happened we have no opportunity to make a record on that point  on the statute that confers refugee status indicates that spouses minor children are needed as refugees as the principal refugee would say and it also says that that's the case if they are not to meet in refugee or not not eligible for refugee status in their own right mr john the fled the same persecution in somalia that is and did mr john the fled the same the same violence in the same strife that the rest of this family did their money difference i mean you know there's a difference i mean he wasn't determined to be a as you know in a derivative on a derivative basis yes not in his own right not because there was a terminations that he your client faced certain conditions it was because his aunt faced certain conditions that's cry you want to now you're trying to argue are you saying should argue to the agency that he should be able to show he face those conditions and i guess we're kind of wonder and it's fifteen years later i mean it's a little late for that isn't it never had the benefit of that procedure how do you have the benefit of that procedure he could have raised his then that he was a refugee at the time he was admitted just like the statute requires thank you thank you very much they sust