[00:00:00] Speaker 01: Case number 21-5028, Washington Alliance of Technology Workers, Appellants versus United States Department of Homeland Security et al. [00:00:09] Speaker 01: Mr. Miano for the appellant, Mr. Press for the government appellees, Mr. Hughes for the association appellees. [00:00:16] Speaker 07: Mr. Miano, thank goodness we can see you. [00:00:18] Speaker 04: Thank you. [00:00:24] Speaker 04: We've had some technical problems. [00:00:26] Speaker 04: The building has basically lost its internet. [00:00:28] Speaker 04: So I'm sorry we're having to do the phone. [00:00:30] Speaker 04: We may lose the video. [00:00:33] Speaker 07: OK. [00:00:34] Speaker 07: Well, we can hear you. [00:00:36] Speaker 07: So please proceed. [00:00:40] Speaker 04: May it please the court. [00:00:42] Speaker 04: The statute at issue of this appeal is very clear. [00:00:44] Speaker 04: In fact, it is so clear that until now, it has never suffered from conflicting opinions in the courts. [00:00:51] Speaker 04: The student visa authorizes admission of bona fide students solely to pursue a course of study and an approved academic institution [00:00:59] Speaker 04: that will report termination of attendance. [00:01:01] Speaker 04: Those are the requirements for student visa. [00:01:04] Speaker 04: That DHS has disregarded those requirements to transform student visas into the largest guest worker program in the entire immigration system by allowing aliens to work in the United States when they do not conform to those requirements. [00:01:17] Speaker 04: Regulation at issue is an excessive DHS authority for two reasons. [00:01:21] Speaker 04: First, it allows aliens to remain in the United States when they're not pursuing a course of study. [00:01:27] Speaker 04: and it allows aliens to work in the United States while not pursuing a course of study. [00:01:32] Speaker 04: And the practical effect of this is that DHS has created its own H1B program through regulation that circumvents the caps on H1B visas that protect American workers. [00:01:43] Speaker 05: Mr. Miano, can I ask you to just pause for a minute or two and focus on the government's argument that your association lacks standing? [00:01:55] Speaker 05: If you don't mind, would you focus on that? [00:01:57] Speaker 05: And maybe you could start by telling me, for you to have standing at the summary judgment stage, you have to show that a member of your association is competing with OTP workers who are not attending school, who are subject to extensions. [00:02:15] Speaker 05: So could you point the court where in the record that what is your best evidence of that? [00:02:22] Speaker 04: That's the evidence for that your honor is one that this right this regulation is targeted to the tech industry, so the workers coming in here are specifically targeted to the tech industry and we have the plaintiff is a union of technology work. [00:02:38] Speaker 05: Under our under our decision in Mendoza if if you want to make that argument, you have to show that one of your members is. [00:02:47] Speaker 05: quote, a direct and current competitor whose bottom line may be adversely affected by the challenge government action. [00:02:55] Speaker 05: That's a quote from the case. [00:02:57] Speaker 05: So where is that evidence in the record? [00:03:00] Speaker 04: The evidence in the record, Your Honor, is that the workers in question here are working in the tech industry. [00:03:08] Speaker 04: They're active, currently active workers [00:03:11] Speaker 04: And in the case of Mr. Smith, he's a temporary worker. [00:03:16] Speaker 04: So it's continuously searching for work. [00:03:19] Speaker 04: But the standard- Mr. Who? [00:03:22] Speaker 04: Mr. Smith. [00:03:24] Speaker 04: Mr. Smith. [00:03:24] Speaker 04: He is a temporary worker. [00:03:28] Speaker 04: The novel argument that the government raised was that now that two of the named members of the association are [00:03:38] Speaker 04: now that two of the main members of the association are employed, government's argument is now that they're no longer competitors, that they're no longer in the industry. [00:03:48] Speaker 04: The standard in this, for a competitive standard, is whether the regulation issue allows competition against them. [00:03:58] Speaker 04: Louisiana Energy, and this report is repeatedly held that a [00:04:04] Speaker 04: party suffers injury in fact, its petition is allowed against them. [00:04:09] Speaker 04: And in this case, it's not even allowed, it's directed towards them. [00:04:13] Speaker 05: Let me ask you to, you know, in response to your, in the district court, in the appendix that you filed, in support of your motion of summary judgment, you had a very helpful table. [00:04:32] Speaker 05: listing all of the allegations in support of standing. [00:04:34] Speaker 05: Do you know what document I'm talking about? [00:04:37] Speaker 06: Yes, Your Honor. [00:04:38] Speaker 05: Okay. [00:04:39] Speaker 05: So you have two columns there. [00:04:42] Speaker 05: You list the allegations and then the evidence for each one. [00:04:48] Speaker 05: And as I go through it, next to every one of the allegations, which claim that applications have been made for OPT extensions, [00:05:01] Speaker 05: for workers in companies where your members apply for jobs, there's 27 of those. [00:05:07] Speaker 05: It says there's no evidence. [00:05:14] Speaker 04: I'm looking up here what you're referring to. [00:05:21] Speaker 05: I'm looking at your chart where you have, I didn't write down the numbers, but there are 27 different allegations [00:05:29] Speaker 05: which claimed that applications were made for OPT extensions for workers in companies where your members have applied for jobs or are working. [00:05:42] Speaker 05: And each one has this statement that there's no evidence because it's in the hands of the department. [00:05:50] Speaker 04: Right, your honor. [00:05:51] Speaker 04: Okay, now I see what you're talking about. [00:05:53] Speaker 05: So that, what's your... [00:05:59] Speaker 05: given that we're at summary judgment here, you have to actually prove standing. [00:06:03] Speaker 05: You know, we're not at the motion of the procedure anymore. [00:06:07] Speaker 05: What does that table mean to you? [00:06:10] Speaker 04: Your honor, what the difference is here is that we're now talking about specific job losses, and that's a concept this court has repeatedly rejected. [00:06:20] Speaker 04: You don't have to show specific losses of sales, but rather you have to show that competition is allowed against you. [00:06:28] Speaker 04: And in this case, we're talking about a program that allows 200 over 200,000. [00:06:33] Speaker 05: Are you referring to Mendoza? [00:06:38] Speaker 04: No, I'm not referring to Mendoza. [00:06:39] Speaker 04: I'm referring to Shirley versus Sebelius. [00:06:43] Speaker 04: That is really Sebelius. [00:06:45] Speaker 04: The standard, it says that the issue isn't lost sales per se. [00:06:51] Speaker 04: It's the allowance of competition. [00:06:54] Speaker 04: And so we have more competitors in the market. [00:06:56] Speaker 04: You add 400,000, you add 200,000 competitors into the technology market in the U.S. [00:07:02] Speaker 04: market, you're affecting everyone who's in the market. [00:07:05] Speaker 04: Now, in theory, people might say that's a generalized grievance, but we would flip around and say that when DHS does something as broad as this, where it's adding as many foreign workers, it injures more workers. [00:07:20] Speaker 07: I thought this Mr. Sawade, I'm not sure, S-A-W-A-D-E, I thought his affidavit was more concrete. [00:07:34] Speaker 04: Mr. Miyano? [00:07:36] Speaker 04: Yes, Your Honor. [00:07:38] Speaker 04: It's different how the people specify them, what they do, but Mr. Sawade has worked [00:07:46] Speaker 04: in the tech industry, he's been laid off, he's worked as a temporary worker, and now is back working full time. [00:07:55] Speaker 04: And all of this has occurred during the course of this litigation. [00:07:59] Speaker 04: So we're now, so we have these workers who are, they're applying for jobs, they're working for jobs, and these are just represented as an entire union that represents tech workers. [00:08:14] Speaker 07: All right. [00:08:15] Speaker 07: Judge Tatel, does that answer your questions on standing? [00:08:21] Speaker 05: No, but go ahead. [00:08:23] Speaker 07: I don't have any other questions. [00:08:26] Speaker 00: I had a broader question on standing. [00:08:30] Speaker 00: I do see the logic of your position that competitor standing, the premise of it is if in the business to business context, if a regulation eases restrictions on one business that harms a competitor and in Mendoza, [00:08:45] Speaker 00: if immigration law gives a opportunity for people in a field, animal herding, that is going to change the employment prospects of domestic animal herders. [00:08:59] Speaker 00: And I'm not sure that I see an outer bound, but it is when you get into a field like STEM, which is very diffuse and large and ill-defined, [00:09:11] Speaker 00: It does seem like the implications of our case law, which of course is on us, are that any working person in the United States would have standing to challenge [00:09:25] Speaker 00: any immigration law that affords worker permission, authority to work, to people coming in. [00:09:34] Speaker 00: And I'm just wondering, that seems like generalized standing and whether you have any help for me in thinking that through. [00:09:47] Speaker 04: Well, like in the Shays versus FEC case, basically it said that [00:09:53] Speaker 04: anyone had standing who was in the in the electoral field, okay, because generalized grievance has two, two parts. [00:10:03] Speaker 04: One has to affect a lot of people. [00:10:05] Speaker 04: And two, it has to give nebulous injury. [00:10:07] Speaker 06: Okay. [00:10:08] Speaker 04: Here, we're not dealing with nebulous industry, increased competition, the allowance of increased competition has been treated as a as a concrete injury by this court consistently. [00:10:20] Speaker 04: So that takes it out of the range of a generalized injury. [00:10:24] Speaker 00: Well, even there, though, Mr. Miano, the brief of the tech companies make a point that I think is economically supported by at least some evidence, which is that certain [00:10:41] Speaker 00: Certain tech workers may not have a net negative effect on employment, but in fact a net positive. [00:10:47] Speaker 00: If you bring in people who have key skills that will allow a business to do something, they may need more workers to come together and accomplish that that they couldn't do at all. [00:11:02] Speaker 00: without the kernel of knowledge workers. [00:11:06] Speaker 00: And so then it becomes a question of, well, whose burden? [00:11:10] Speaker 00: And none of that is in the record. [00:11:13] Speaker 00: But it isn't always clear that adding worker A to the economy depresses opportunity for worker B. And again, I'm not sure how to think about that. [00:11:28] Speaker 04: Well, Your Honor, that concept has been rejected by state and its Supreme Court. [00:11:31] Speaker 04: then we don't take the benefit to diminish the injury. [00:11:38] Speaker 04: Plus, we would argue that those study claims are malicious. [00:11:45] Speaker 04: I mean, they fly in the face of the basic law of supply and demand. [00:11:50] Speaker 00: And the problem that we're facing in the tech industry- I'm sorry, you referred to the Supreme Court case saying we don't take the benefit to diminish that. [00:11:58] Speaker 00: What case are you thinking about? [00:12:00] Speaker 04: I can't think of the case right off the top, but that was the argument that was used in Texas versus the United States in the DACA case where the plaintiff, the defendants argued there was no injury for having to provide driver's licenses because they're getting payment. [00:12:18] Speaker 04: But the courts rejected that because they said there's not a plus or minus. [00:12:23] Speaker 04: It's like basic trespass slash law. [00:12:25] Speaker 04: If someone comes on your property, sees a piece of trash in the property and walks over and picks up the trash, you've still been injured by trespass, even though you suffered a benefit. [00:12:37] Speaker 04: But the problem we're facing in the tech industry is Americans are being displaced. [00:12:42] Speaker 04: I mean, physically, one for one, displaced. [00:12:49] Speaker 04: But being told, you know, is it creates creates this benefit, but when you're working in the industry, because it will just title hold heard one of our cases we Americans that have literally been replaced by h1b workers by by foreign workers being brought brought in. [00:13:04] Speaker 04: And these, unfortunately, an h1b program there's no the only protection for American workers under h1b. [00:13:11] Speaker 04: is limits on the number of workers. [00:13:14] Speaker 04: So you can go in and take to it. [00:13:15] Speaker 05: Were you referring to saved jobs? [00:13:18] Speaker 05: Is that the case you were just referring to? [00:13:20] Speaker 05: But in that case, in that case, it was actually evidence that its members had affidavits saying some of them had been fired and replaced by H1 workers. [00:13:40] Speaker 05: I mean, you don't have any evidence like that here, right? [00:13:45] Speaker 04: No, these people, it's just standard plain vanilla competition. [00:13:49] Speaker 05: But you see the point, I think the point Judge Pillard and I are both probing here is that the quote plain vanilla may not work at summary judgment. [00:14:02] Speaker 05: I'll just go back to read you. [00:14:05] Speaker 05: Mendoza says you need direct [00:14:10] Speaker 05: and current competitor. [00:14:14] Speaker 05: Here, you have to show that one of your members is a, quote, direct and current competitor. [00:14:22] Speaker 05: Direct and current competitor. [00:14:23] Speaker 07: All right. [00:14:24] Speaker 07: And I would point out that in Save Jobs USA, the court says, [00:14:29] Speaker 07: The department overreads our direct and current competitor formulation, which simply distinguishes an existing market participant from a potential and unduly speculative participant. [00:14:42] Speaker 07: And then goes on to say, we know that these H-1B's visa holders have competed with save jobs members in the past. [00:14:51] Speaker 07: And as far as we know, nothing prevents them from doing so in the future. [00:14:56] Speaker 07: If that's good enough for H1B, I don't know why it isn't good enough for F1. [00:15:00] Speaker 07: Yeah. [00:15:04] Speaker 04: Well, thank you. [00:15:05] Speaker 04: I mean, that's basically our position. [00:15:08] Speaker 04: And I'll give you two different. [00:15:10] Speaker 04: One, in Mendoza, these are people who just wanted to get into the business. [00:15:15] Speaker 04: In this case, this is a unit of people actually in the business. [00:15:19] Speaker 04: I mean, these aren't people as speculative. [00:15:22] Speaker 04: These are computer programmers, network people who actually do it. [00:15:27] Speaker 04: And getting back to the generalized grievance type thing, I mean, what we have is a post DHS does a regulation to import foreign butchers, okay? [00:15:38] Speaker 04: I mean, theory only the butchers would have standing to challenge such a regulation. [00:15:43] Speaker 04: If they then have a regulation for bakers, [00:15:47] Speaker 04: then only bakers would have regulations. [00:15:50] Speaker 04: But when they start having butchers, bakers, and candle-sip makers increase the number of fields that are eligible, it seems to me they're increasing the number of people who have standing to challenge it. [00:16:03] Speaker 04: So if they say, hey, we're just letting tech workers in, which is main part of this extension is tech workers, you would think only tech workers. [00:16:13] Speaker 04: If they said this regulation is a lie to anyone, then effectively it would sound [00:16:17] Speaker 04: they're open expanding to the entire world. [00:16:20] Speaker 07: Mr. Bianno, you've used up your time, unfortunately, on standing, but let me give you, since I think you're the only one challenging, I don't think the association is, why don't you take at least three minutes to address the merits? [00:16:43] Speaker 04: Well, Your Honor, the problem with the merits here is that we have a very clear statute that has never had any problem with interpretation that says that we have to have bona fide students pursuing a course of study at an academic institution. [00:16:57] Speaker 04: Instead, we have people we're calling students who are working after graduation, have no connection to a university, they're not attending class, they finished their course of study, [00:17:11] Speaker 04: And DHS has taken upon itself to create a guest worker program to allow these workers provide labor and in fact the regulation. [00:17:23] Speaker 04: This litigation. [00:17:26] Speaker 04: was explicitly designed to increase the amount of labor by substituting, to circumvent the quotas on H-1B visas. [00:17:35] Speaker 00: And so, you know- Mr. Miano, in your view, is the graduate who stays in the United States for a couple of months after graduation out of status and deportable the day after graduation [00:17:50] Speaker 04: Your honor, what you've now hit on, I guess, would be runs into what Einstein's theory of relativity, that we can't have instantaneous movement. [00:18:02] Speaker 04: And I think that that creates the type of gap that Chevron doesn't even exist. [00:18:07] Speaker 04: What happens when Congress creates something that's impossible? [00:18:11] Speaker 04: So what is actually possible? [00:18:14] Speaker 07: I thought they had 60 days to leave. [00:18:18] Speaker 00: But not under the statute, only under the regulation? [00:18:20] Speaker 00: Is that right? [00:18:21] Speaker 00: And the question is, what's the statutory support for that regulation? [00:18:26] Speaker 04: Well, what I would say in that case, and we're getting into theoretical, but Chevron is kind of a one-size-fits-all. [00:18:34] Speaker 04: And what we have there, in what you've described, the statute creates an absolute impossibility for the agency. [00:18:40] Speaker 04: They can't leave the next day and instantly be gone. [00:18:43] Speaker 04: So in that case, there's certain discretion. [00:18:46] Speaker 04: How do I do it? [00:18:48] Speaker 04: And GHS has said, okay, you can leave at 60 days and you can leave. [00:18:53] Speaker 00: But really, I mean, it seems like on your theory, the student who is, you know, that students should be applying for tourist visas for any day that they plan to stay after graduation and that the rule under your theory, the 60 day rule is a statutory violation and that maybe the, you know, Homeland Security will have a prosecutorial policy where it won't go after students. [00:19:19] Speaker 00: I mean, why would it if they're heading out of town [00:19:22] Speaker 00: out of the country, but the rule, the statutory authority for that rule, doesn't that rise and fall on your theory, just like the OTP rule would have to rise and fall on your theory? [00:19:36] Speaker 04: I don't think so, Your Honor, because what you're, unfortunately, in the immigration statute, there are a number of absolute impossibilities that Congress has enacted. [00:19:45] Speaker 00: It's not an impossibility to schedule a flight or get a tourist visa. [00:19:49] Speaker 00: Why is that a possibility? [00:19:51] Speaker 04: Well, you schedule a flight to the, oh, I've got my degree, we'll move. [00:19:56] Speaker 04: And I think there's a big difference between giving someone time to actually leave the country for a modest period of time to leave the country is entirely different than allowing them to stay for 42 months so they can provide labor to Microsoft. [00:20:13] Speaker 07: Well, and as a matter of fact, they are allowed to stay [00:20:17] Speaker 07: in the summertime between years of study, and they're not necessarily pursuing a course of study. [00:20:28] Speaker 07: If there are no more questions, then we'll give you a couple of minutes in reply, Mr. Miano. [00:20:33] Speaker 07: Mr. Press. [00:20:37] Speaker 03: Thank you, Your Honors. [00:20:38] Speaker 03: Joshua Press from the Department of Justice here on behalf of the government and police. [00:20:43] Speaker 03: Your Honors, we [00:20:44] Speaker 03: I think that this is a simple case for two principal reasons. [00:20:48] Speaker 03: One is the questioning of Mr. Riano was sort of getting at. [00:20:54] Speaker 03: The standing questions do linger in this case, and it is different from Judge Tatel's opinion in save jobs, simply because at no time have the plaintiffs or the rather watch text members actually shown that they were in direct and current competition. [00:21:14] Speaker 03: We know from Judge Henderson's opinion that at the motion to dismiss stage, they did have standing because of their allegations that they were still searching for jobs and the complaint. [00:21:27] Speaker 03: But at the motion for summary judgment stage, as this court has made pretty clear numerous times, including in Humane Society, which we cite to and discuss in our briefing, at the summary judgment stage, the burden is greater upon the plaintiffs. [00:21:44] Speaker 03: we made the argument that we did. [00:21:46] Speaker 00: I will be- Mr. Press, why isn't it enough, as Mr. Bianno's briefing asserts, that the people who are in jobs, his members who are in jobs, that presumptively their wages may be depressed by the existence of the program. [00:22:02] Speaker 00: So it's not just about competition for job openings, it's also about the [00:22:08] Speaker 00: conditions of the job that one has, if there are people who are eager to get it on weaker terms of supply and demand, isn't it sort of presumed by the law of economics that they're harmed even if they're employed? [00:22:24] Speaker 03: Well, I think that's a good question, Your Honor. [00:22:26] Speaker 03: I think the problem with that argument, though, is that courts don't typically presume things for the purposes of standing. [00:22:35] Speaker 03: Now, I will admit [00:22:36] Speaker 03: law of economics does come into play. [00:22:38] Speaker 03: And that's why the competitor standing doctrine exists. [00:22:40] Speaker 03: But I think this court's case law has been pretty clear that that's why there is a need for direct and current competition. [00:22:48] Speaker 03: If you simply look at the affidavits that were filed by flash text members, they really don't talk about anything that your honor's questioning is getting at with respect to depressed wages. [00:22:58] Speaker 03: They talk about, I've applied for these jobs and I didn't get them. [00:23:02] Speaker 03: I think the difficulty there, and we're sympathetic to that, but the difficulty is when you're talking about the actions of third parties and their decision-making processes to whether they hired or not someone who interviewed for a job, you're falling directly into the Lujan versus defenders of wildlife, much more is needed category to bridge that gap and fill that presumption that your honor's question is sort of getting at. [00:23:29] Speaker 03: I mean, with the wages issue, I could just tell you that there's really nothing [00:23:33] Speaker 03: about that. [00:23:34] Speaker 03: So it's really all about what Mr. Marino was getting at of, am I being replaced by a foreign student or a national student under the OPT program? [00:23:43] Speaker 03: There is nothing in the record about any sort of replacement theory as there was in save jobs with Judge Tatel's opinion there. [00:23:50] Speaker 05: What's the defect? [00:23:53] Speaker 05: Mr. Marino mentioned an affidavit by [00:23:57] Speaker 05: an employee named Sawade, S-A-W-A-E. [00:24:04] Speaker 03: What's the defect in that affidavit? [00:24:07] Speaker 03: So with Mr. Sawade's declaration, the issue there, no problem. [00:24:13] Speaker 03: And that's how, I hope that I'm pronouncing that correctly. [00:24:16] Speaker 03: Certainly correct me if I'm wrong. [00:24:18] Speaker 03: But I think with Mr. Sawade's declaration in particular, [00:24:23] Speaker 03: He never actually alleged, I think the last time he got a full-time job was in 2018. [00:24:29] Speaker 03: And that's it. [00:24:30] Speaker 03: That's all we know. [00:24:31] Speaker 03: He started it in June 4th, 2018. [00:24:33] Speaker 03: I think that's a JA page 215 in the appendix. [00:24:39] Speaker 03: And the problem that we had with that was that when we moved for summary judgment was in about a year, two years ago. [00:24:48] Speaker 03: So it was in fall of 2019. [00:24:51] Speaker 03: essentially we had not heard of anything about Mr. Sawade's employment search or career path or anything like that for over a year at that point. [00:25:00] Speaker 03: And so we thought, well, that doesn't actually get at current competition. [00:25:04] Speaker 03: That's past injury. [00:25:05] Speaker 03: And because the words are direct and current, as your honor was pointing out before, that places an emphasis on the present tense, not future tense or past tense, perhaps immediate future for purposes of typical standing, [00:25:21] Speaker 03: analysis, but there is nothing in the record about presently he was being affected or that he was actually looking for a job. [00:25:29] Speaker 03: Well, Mr. Villano might sort of, uh, and he has in previous iterations of this litigation sort of argued, well, in our complaint, we say that our jobs are just constant. [00:25:41] Speaker 03: But I think the problem with that argument as Judge Pollard was getting at was that when you're sort of opening that up to, [00:25:47] Speaker 03: I'm competing with literally everyone in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics field that is extremely similar to taxpayer standard because what we're really saying is as long as someone wants to get a job and foreign students or international personnel might come in and take a job, [00:26:05] Speaker 03: Therefore, I have standing to challenge that entire legislation. [00:26:10] Speaker 07: Go ahead, Judge Henderson. [00:26:12] Speaker 07: All right. [00:26:12] Speaker 07: And why haven't we said precisely that in Save Jobs USA when we've said, in this case, we know that H1B visa holders, you can substitute F1, have competed with Save Jobs members in the past. [00:26:27] Speaker 07: And as far as we know, nothing prevents them from doing so in the future. [00:26:32] Speaker 07: And the language about [00:26:33] Speaker 07: In the same case, the department overreads our direct and current competitor formulations. [00:26:41] Speaker 03: So I think that that is a good question. [00:26:43] Speaker 03: It's interesting because there's sort of an echo effect between this case and that case. [00:26:48] Speaker 03: Because that case does cite, I think, Your Honor's opinion from Washtag in the motion to dismiss phase. [00:26:54] Speaker 03: I think the distinction truly is that there was already evidence in the record at the summary judgment phase in save jobs of direct [00:27:02] Speaker 03: job loss by one of the competitors, and I think that's sort of the problem here is we have no evidence of anything like that. [00:27:09] Speaker 03: It's much more diffuse. [00:27:12] Speaker 03: And second, there's no evidence that they're currently still looking for a job. [00:27:16] Speaker 03: And I think, yes, please. [00:27:18] Speaker 00: I was just going to say, I think the standing issues are kind of a problem of our creation, and we will have to address them. [00:27:25] Speaker 00: But I'm interested in your position on the merits. [00:27:28] Speaker 00: Yes. [00:27:28] Speaker 00: How typical are, I mean, you defend this provision on the ground that it seeks to enter language [00:27:39] Speaker 00: means that the conditions of these visas are assessed at the outset and that after that it's sort of up to the DHS to put conditions and both of time and activity. [00:27:57] Speaker 00: How many other provisions are in the seeks to enter form and would the effects of your position be limited just to those? [00:28:09] Speaker 03: I think that, first I'll try to answer the first question. [00:28:14] Speaker 03: I don't actually know the number of definitions that sort of use that language. [00:28:21] Speaker 03: It's really alphabet soup when it comes to the different status and categories of visas that foreign nationals can choose to pursue. [00:28:29] Speaker 03: I do think that if you look at just a typical example, a bee visitor, they're seeking to enter [00:28:38] Speaker 03: for a temporary period of time for pleasure or temporary business purpose or something along those of that nature. [00:28:47] Speaker 03: There's language that specifically bars them from working when they're trying to get into that category. [00:28:55] Speaker 03: I think the reason why we were making that argument that this is going to admissibility determinations is because number one, when a foreign national needs to get an F1 visa, they have to go to the State Department in a consulate and they have to show [00:29:08] Speaker 03: Hey, I'm enrolled at this university or at this school and I wanna take these types of classes. [00:29:13] Speaker 03: And they have to prove to the consulate that they really are going to be a bona fide student. [00:29:17] Speaker 03: Then they have to come in to a port of entry and they have to talk to a CBP border patrol or customs and border protection officer at an airport or something like that and say, you know, I've got the visa from the consular officer. [00:29:32] Speaker 03: Here are my papers from the school. [00:29:35] Speaker 03: I'm really excited to be here. [00:29:36] Speaker 03: I wanna go to class. [00:29:37] Speaker 03: et cetera. [00:29:39] Speaker 03: But once they enter the United States, once they're admitted into the United States, obviously things can change once we're going through college classes. [00:29:47] Speaker 03: I mean, I don't think it's unusual for college students, for example, to change their majors or to change what they're interested in or their pursuits while they are attending classes. [00:29:56] Speaker 03: And as part of that, things happen once they enter. [00:30:01] Speaker 00: I can tell you that, and I think the case law is- If a student gets mono and just says, I'm not going to be able to do well, I need to take a break, is there any regulation that defines how a person who drops out or takes time off is dealt with? [00:30:19] Speaker 03: Yes. [00:30:20] Speaker 03: So if I might, because I'm probably going to exceed my time, I hope that I can answer your question in full. [00:30:27] Speaker 03: Very quickly. [00:30:29] Speaker 03: In that scenario, that came up actually in the 1926 or the 1928 Northern District of California case that we talked about in our brief. [00:30:38] Speaker 03: Whether he was still, that student was a bona fide student, even though he got sick and had to drop out while working at a newspaper in San Francisco. [00:30:47] Speaker 03: And the question was whether he was deportable and whether we should just leave him, kick him out immediately as Mr. Miyano's position would have it because he was no longer a student. [00:30:58] Speaker 03: And the issue there was, no, he was still a bona fide student. [00:31:01] Speaker 03: And the case laws repeat that that's what the term bona fide student means, because there's a good faith intent to continue with the studies. [00:31:08] Speaker 03: Now, number two, in terms of if they do stop taking classes and they stop pursuing a course of study, at that point, they are out of status. [00:31:17] Speaker 03: And the regulations do sort of require them to either leave or to resume their studies. [00:31:22] Speaker 00: That's the statute is very oddly written, and it seems like both sides have some some challenges but under your theory, the statute primarily addresses the students status. [00:31:38] Speaker 00: at the time that they seek to enter, do they have to then be a bona fide student? [00:31:44] Speaker 00: Like reading it the way you do, in fact, reading the literal language, it sounds like an alien who's living, having a residence in a foreign country, who is a bona fide student qualified to pursue a full course of study. [00:31:57] Speaker 00: So who already is in school of some sort. [00:32:00] Speaker 00: and then is qualified to pursue it and seeks to enter the United States for that purpose. [00:32:04] Speaker 00: So what if you're not a student and you want to come to the United States on one of these visas? [00:32:08] Speaker 00: The statute literally read seems to foreclose that. [00:32:12] Speaker 03: Well, I think Your Honor is correct that if we read this too literally, it sort of doesn't make a lot of sense in a lot of different circumstances. [00:32:20] Speaker 03: That's why, to be perfectly candid about this, the statute has never been read so literally as to strangle its meaning. [00:32:27] Speaker 03: It's always been read functionally. [00:32:29] Speaker 03: to mean that if you are coming here to go to a school and attend classes and to do work study even, and I think the work study stuff is really discussed at length in all the briefings in support of the government's position, then you can come in. [00:32:49] Speaker 03: We will let you in to pursue that course of study. [00:32:53] Speaker 03: Obviously, that's supposed to be at a university, but you don't have to attend the university immediately. [00:32:57] Speaker 03: or already be in the university, simply having proof that you've been accepted to attend those classes and to start your course of study is adequate. [00:33:06] Speaker 00: And there may be some difference between you and Mr. Hughes on this point, but you're not arguing that we can read the statute itself without deference to support your position? [00:33:18] Speaker 00: You need Chevron step two? [00:33:20] Speaker 03: Well, I, [00:33:22] Speaker 03: I think we have made that argument implicitly. [00:33:26] Speaker 03: I know that that sounds like a cop out. [00:33:28] Speaker 03: But I think the reason why I say that is because the entire ratification doctrine is really an interpretive doctrine of the statute. [00:33:38] Speaker 03: And Mr. Fuse's brief and mine really look to the exact same history in that the point we're making is the statute has always been interpreted this way. [00:33:47] Speaker 03: Mr. Miyano said that [00:33:49] Speaker 03: Congress never had a problem with interpretation and courts have never had a problem interpretation. [00:33:53] Speaker 03: He's absolutely correct about that. [00:33:54] Speaker 03: And the reason why I know that he's correct about this because at least since 1947, the statute has always been interpreted to allow for practical training, including practical training. [00:34:04] Speaker 03: after graduation, which it seems is the main beef that Mr. Miano has. [00:34:07] Speaker 00: Do we know that at the original adoption of the INA, do we have evidence that before its adoption under the 47 act that some of the practical training was post-graduation as opposed to during school? [00:34:20] Speaker 00: What's your best evidence on that? [00:34:22] Speaker 03: So I truly think that the 1950 Senate report discussion that it's really, we get into the guts of it within our brief, [00:34:29] Speaker 03: I know Mr. Hughes's brief gets into the guts of it as well. [00:34:32] Speaker 03: That is the best evidence of that because that is an acknowledgement by the Senate that this is going on after graduation and that we are not changing it at all. [00:34:41] Speaker 03: We are not changing the language. [00:34:43] Speaker 03: I mean, honestly, to your honor's point with respect to why the language is written this way, it's because it's vestigial. [00:34:49] Speaker 03: I mean, a lot of this language has been around basically since 1924. [00:34:55] Speaker 03: And I know that's not a century, but that's a pretty long time. [00:34:59] Speaker 07: Yes, sorry. [00:35:01] Speaker 07: Go ahead. [00:35:01] Speaker 07: Finish your thought. [00:35:03] Speaker 03: Well, I was actually going to conclude. [00:35:04] Speaker 03: All right. [00:35:05] Speaker 07: Well, I have a question for you. [00:35:06] Speaker 07: And that is, considering our [00:35:11] Speaker 07: precedent from 79, this ANWO versus INS, which interprets this intent of not abandoning the foreign residents as a continuing requirement. [00:35:28] Speaker 07: What, if anything, do you require the alien to show that he has no intent of abandoning his foreign residents? [00:35:42] Speaker 07: And it is a continuing showing he makes. [00:35:48] Speaker 03: Well, I think that is a good point. [00:35:50] Speaker 03: I think that determination gets made at the port of entry when someone is being. [00:35:55] Speaker 03: And how? [00:35:56] Speaker 07: With forms or what? [00:35:59] Speaker 03: And affidavit? [00:36:01] Speaker 03: I think it does. [00:36:03] Speaker 03: Forms obviously are necessary both with the consular officer when they're approaching a consulate and saying asking for a visa to allow them to apply for admission in front of CBP. [00:36:12] Speaker 03: And then again, with CBP and to take your honest point to answer your question directly, they have to show, hey, this is my current path. [00:36:20] Speaker 03: These are the studies that I'm going to be taking. [00:36:23] Speaker 03: This is how long I'm going to be taking the coursework or at least presumably, because I think as we all know sometimes, I knew personally that sometimes I take more classes for a longer period of time than I initially set out to take. [00:36:36] Speaker 03: And, you know, [00:36:38] Speaker 07: Do they swear that they're not abandoning their foreign residence? [00:36:42] Speaker 07: I'm just trying to find out how you established intent. [00:36:46] Speaker 03: Well, so that is a good point. [00:36:48] Speaker 03: I think, honestly, the reason is that that's not a problem is that because there is a presumption built in both before the consular officer and the CBP at any port of entry that the person is trying to come in with an intent to remain here indefinitely. [00:37:03] Speaker 07: Well, where does the presumption come from? [00:37:06] Speaker 03: Honestly, it comes from the definitions of immigrant versus non-immigrant. [00:37:12] Speaker 03: The problem with that and why it's quirky is because non-immigrant is not really defined. [00:37:16] Speaker 03: It's only defined as the negative of someone who's not trying to come in to remain here indefinitely. [00:37:22] Speaker 03: And so therefore, I know that that is extremely frustrating. [00:37:25] Speaker 03: I apologize. [00:37:27] Speaker 03: But what I can tell you is the way that this works in practice, [00:37:31] Speaker 03: is that CBP and consular officers always presume when someone is approaching them saying, oh, don't worry. [00:37:37] Speaker 03: I'm just coming in to see Disneyland. [00:37:38] Speaker 03: And I promise I'll leave immediately after that. [00:37:40] Speaker 03: The way that they presume and try to deal with this problem that your honor is getting at is they say, well, you have to prove to me that you are going to leave. [00:37:48] Speaker 03: I mean, you can't just say that. [00:37:50] Speaker 03: I'm obviously saying that it's helpful because we do presume that they're telling the truth. [00:37:54] Speaker 03: And I don't know if there's an affidavit or any sort of declaration that they have to swear to. [00:37:58] Speaker 03: I apologize. [00:38:01] Speaker 03: my lack of knowledge about that specific point, but I do know that they have to show documentation. [00:38:07] Speaker 03: They have to back that up with some sort of evidence that fits their story. [00:38:10] Speaker 03: I also know that when they drop out, and this is the other weird thing about the F1 program, is that if they drop out or if they stop attending classes, as Judge Pollard's question was getting earlier, then the school itself is required to report that within the SEVA system as the [00:38:25] Speaker 03: soon exchange visitor information system. [00:38:27] Speaker 03: That's extremely important. [00:38:29] Speaker 03: Congress really cares about that. [00:38:30] Speaker 03: That was added in 2002 because frankly, some people were, well, some of the September 11th attackers came in under this program and really obviously we're not students. [00:38:43] Speaker 03: And because of that, Congress cared about that and put that onus on the universities to report students who were not complying or were not going [00:38:52] Speaker 03: to classes because at that point, they were out of status. [00:38:55] Speaker 03: And at that point, 60 days fixed it. [00:38:56] Speaker 00: As a policy matter, that makes sense. [00:38:56] Speaker 00: But Mr. Miano points to that to say, well, doesn't that imply that the statutory test is not applicable only when the person seeks to enter, but has an ongoing, applies during the entire time the student is here? [00:39:17] Speaker 00: So he says that the very fact that you're verifying and asking for reporting and, you know, means that the statutory language requires that the person that, you know, it's not just for the purpose of pursuing such a course of study, but that it is only for the duration of that course of study. [00:39:41] Speaker 03: Right. [00:39:41] Speaker 03: And I know that that's an argument Mr. Miano makes. [00:39:43] Speaker 03: I think the distinction is that onus is not at all on [00:39:46] Speaker 03: the international student, the onus is on the universities and programs that subscribe to the F1 program. [00:39:53] Speaker 03: They are the ones who have to update the database. [00:39:55] Speaker 03: If we put the onus on the student and it's somebody we don't trust, frankly, I don't understand why we would let them update their status and tell the United States government, oh, don't worry, I am going to class. [00:40:04] Speaker 03: That's why it's directed to and it regulates not any of the F1 international students, but the universities themselves. [00:40:11] Speaker 00: And is that pursuant to the to the DHS general authority and not pursuant to the F1 authority? [00:40:18] Speaker 00: Is that where? [00:40:19] Speaker 03: Correct. [00:40:20] Speaker 03: OK, that is in terms of terms of conditions. [00:40:23] Speaker 03: And that is sort of it. [00:40:25] Speaker 03: Once they enter into that program, the universities of the institutions, this is something that they have to do if they want to remain in it. [00:40:31] Speaker 03: For example, the penalty there is not I mean, the students aren't penalized if the school screws up, at least by the United States government, they're not penalized. [00:40:40] Speaker 03: It's the schools and they can [00:40:41] Speaker 03: they might lose their ability to enroll international students if they do not comply with that provision or do not update SEVIS. [00:40:50] Speaker 07: All right, any more questions? [00:40:53] Speaker 07: All right, then we'll hear from Mr. Hughes. [00:40:58] Speaker 02: Thank you. [00:40:59] Speaker 02: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:41:00] Speaker 02: Paul Hughes for Appalee's National Association of Manufacturers, the US Chamber of Commerce and the Information Technology Industry Council. [00:41:09] Speaker 02: Post-completion practical training has existed since at least 1947 for 74 years, and we ask the court to emphatically reject Washtec's efforts to have the court end the program. [00:41:21] Speaker 02: At the bottom, America thrives by attracting international talent to universities and DHS was authorized to determine that those students appropriately may complete their studies through limited practical training. [00:41:33] Speaker 02: We think the way to understand the legal question, the authority here is to begin with section 1184A1. [00:41:39] Speaker 02: That's a very important statute that expressly authorizes the secretary, quote unquote, prescribe regulations that govern the quote unquote time and conditions [00:41:51] Speaker 02: of a non-immigrant's admission. [00:41:53] Speaker 02: This is a broad grant of authority to the secretary, which is consistent with the executive substantial immigration powers. [00:42:01] Speaker 02: In light of that broad delegation of authority, the question in our view then, is there anything that precludes the secretary from adopting the OPT program? [00:42:11] Speaker 02: And we think the limitations can be found in two different places and put guardrails on the secretary section 1184A1 power. [00:42:19] Speaker 02: One would be, is if there's a textual preclusion of the conditions that the Secretary would seek to implement under Section 1184A1. [00:42:27] Speaker 02: And we don't think that F1 has any textual preclusion. [00:42:30] Speaker 02: of this program, and I described that. [00:42:32] Speaker 02: The second is that in exercising the Secretary's 1184A1 power to adopt conditions governing the stay of non-immigrants in the United States, those conditions have to be reasonably related to the underlying purposes of the statute the Secretary is implementing, including the various visa definitions. [00:42:52] Speaker 02: And I think that's a very important limitation in this context, because there's no doubt that the Secretary has broad powers in this context, and one can think of wild hypotheticals that would suggest that you know rogue DHS would allow [00:43:09] Speaker 02: Somebody who comes in on a tourist visa to remain the United States for 50 years and all those sorts of things. [00:43:13] Speaker 02: But what precludes that is that all of those sorts of wild hypotheticals would not be reasonably related to the underlying purposes. [00:43:21] Speaker 00: So we think the question is, how do it seems like the current regulation is is [00:43:26] Speaker 00: done in a better way to meet the kind of nexus with the statute that you're describing, which is describing OPT as part of an educational experience and that has to be recommended by the schools and there has to be oversight by the qualifying employers and the like. [00:43:52] Speaker 00: But the prior iteration of the rule was all about US competitiveness, wasn't it? [00:43:56] Speaker 00: Would that be supportable under, if that were still the frame and the nature of the rule, would that be supportable? [00:44:05] Speaker 00: And if not, how do we sort of deal with the pretext issues of that being the first stab and this much more education-oriented rule being the current? [00:44:18] Speaker 02: Well, so a few responses to that, Your Honor. [00:44:21] Speaker 02: First, just as a functional matter, the rule that's currently before the court is the 2016 OPT rule. [00:44:26] Speaker 02: The challenges of the 2008 rule profound moot, and that's not before the court. [00:44:30] Speaker 02: The 1992 rule is also not directly before the court. [00:44:33] Speaker 02: It's only before the court by implication of the 2016 rule. [00:44:37] Speaker 02: The second point is, as the Supreme Court constructed us in Department of Commerce, looking behind the purposes of the rule would require some sort of extraordinary exceptional evidence of bad faith or bad intent. [00:44:49] Speaker 02: And I don't think there's any such evidence or argument that has been made here. [00:44:53] Speaker 02: So then the question is, well, what is in this rule? [00:44:56] Speaker 02: And DHS in 2016, as the court indicates, provides a very robust record that is before the court that I think more than sufficiently supports the rule. [00:45:07] Speaker 02: I think that's consistent with greater scrutiny. [00:45:09] Speaker 02: The courts have provided regulations today than perhaps they had in prior decades. [00:45:13] Speaker 02: So DHS in promulgating this rule was aware of current judicial approaches and was [00:45:19] Speaker 02: ensured that it effectively did its homework in extensively documenting how a term-limited practical training program directly relates to the completion of the student's education. [00:45:31] Speaker 02: And we pointed to the extensive parts of the record where DHS makes those findings. [00:45:39] Speaker 02: I'd also point the court to the evidence that DHS relied on at J174-148, comment letters that say that extensively. [00:45:47] Speaker 02: As for the duration of the program, the three-year duration, for example, DH has also made very extensive findings that show the reasonableness of why three total years is reasonable. [00:45:58] Speaker 02: For example, at J182, the comment letter of the Society for Human Resources Management says that this is comparable to training programs for postdoctoral students in the three-year period for the National Science Foundation. [00:46:10] Speaker 00: And other evidence- But none of those programs are required for non- [00:46:16] Speaker 00: American students not requiring visas. [00:46:19] Speaker 00: They're not part of any educational program for U.S. [00:46:22] Speaker 00: students. [00:46:24] Speaker 00: Unlike, for example, internship and residency in medical school. [00:46:28] Speaker 02: Well, I think what the DHS was just pointing to is why did they draw the three-year maximum limitation? [00:46:34] Speaker 02: And they did so because looking to the National Science Foundation grants, PhD programs, [00:46:39] Speaker 02: And then also there's extensive evidence around J-127-130-133 that the life cycle of one project for a STEM student doing an integrated circuit design, for example, is often going to be around three years. [00:46:51] Speaker 02: So to get back to the statutory questions, as the court pointed out, it's been uncontroversial that DHS as part of the regulations may allow an individual to remain in the United States for up to 60 days post-graduation as part of their F-1 visa. [00:47:05] Speaker 02: Well, why can they do that? [00:47:06] Speaker 02: Because it's not inconsistent with the statute as we understand it. [00:47:09] Speaker 02: And second, it's a reasonable regulation that effectuates the purposes of the statute. [00:47:14] Speaker 02: For the same reasons, we think OPT is not precluded by the statute and is a reasonable interpretation. [00:47:21] Speaker 07: Second, looking towards- Doesn't your reading, though, read out the word solely in the statute? [00:47:30] Speaker 07: You can quibble about whether it reads out temporarily, three years, I suppose, is temporary. [00:47:39] Speaker 07: But why doesn't it read out the words solely for the purpose of pursuing such a course of study? [00:47:50] Speaker 02: Your Honor, because we think that that is appropriately described as the entry requirement. [00:47:54] Speaker 02: That's what is required. [00:47:55] Speaker 07: Well, let's say it isn't. [00:47:57] Speaker 07: Let's say it isn't. [00:47:57] Speaker 07: I don't buy that, let's say. [00:47:59] Speaker 02: Well, you know, I think there's still some flexibility and understanding of what it means to be a student. [00:48:04] Speaker 02: So let's take, for example, an individual who falls in love and marries somebody and adjusts their status. [00:48:11] Speaker 02: So they entered the United States as a student, but then they adjust to a K-1 visa following a marriage. [00:48:17] Speaker 02: That is often permitted and allowable in our immigration system. [00:48:21] Speaker 02: And that individual, even though the individual who entered solely for one purpose, ultimately had some sort of change at a later point. [00:48:28] Speaker 02: But your honor, the textual language there who seeks to enter the United States temporarily and solely truly we think is best understood as the entry requirements. [00:48:38] Speaker 02: And I agree that that language is very important because it does put parameters on what is reasonable for DHS to adopt as a regulation. [00:48:46] Speaker 02: So we think it would be patently unreasonable if DHS were to promulgate a regulation saying somebody who enters with that intent but a week later decides they don't want to go to school, they'd rather do something else, they drop out. [00:48:58] Speaker 02: they're not furthering their education. [00:49:00] Speaker 02: If DHS were to enact that kind of regulation, we agree that that would be not reasonably related to the underlying purposes of the statute and that that language that the court is pointing me to [00:49:11] Speaker 02: certainly defines what is in the range of reasonableness that DHS could adopt in promulgating regulations that further the purposes of the F-1 statute. [00:49:21] Speaker 02: So I want to be clear. [00:49:23] Speaker 02: We don't think that that language drops from the equation at all. [00:49:26] Speaker 02: It is an important part of it. [00:49:28] Speaker 07: I realize that. [00:49:28] Speaker 07: Are there any more questions? [00:49:31] Speaker 07: All right. [00:49:33] Speaker 07: Let's see. [00:49:34] Speaker 07: Mr. Miano, we've lost you, but I assume you're still on audio. [00:49:38] Speaker 07: Why don't you take two minutes and reply? [00:49:46] Speaker 07: We must've lost him all together. [00:49:50] Speaker 01: Mr. Anderson, Mr. Miano's phone connection has just dropped. [00:49:54] Speaker 01: I am calling him again. [00:49:55] Speaker 04: Okay. [00:50:08] Speaker 04: Your honor, can you hear me? [00:50:09] Speaker 07: Yes. [00:50:10] Speaker 07: Okay. [00:50:11] Speaker 07: Why don't you go ahead, Mr. Miano and take two minutes and reply. [00:50:16] Speaker 04: Okay. [00:50:16] Speaker 04: Let me just go quickly. [00:50:18] Speaker 04: Your honor. [00:50:18] Speaker 04: First of all, um, DHS and standing has, has switched this from allowance of competition to loss sales. [00:50:25] Speaker 04: So I would point out, um, Bristol Myers squib, um, versus, um, Shalala is showing where this court distinguishes between loss sales as an injury and says that law sales is not the actual injury, but it's the increased allowance of comp competition. [00:50:43] Speaker 04: In regards to the long standing use of this program, ratification here isn't even applicable because your watch tech opinion dismissed all the counts except for excess of authority. [00:51:01] Speaker 04: So we're talking just excess of authority here. [00:51:05] Speaker 04: So I mean, ratification is not even applicable. [00:51:09] Speaker 04: In regard to section 1184A, we seem to be forgetting the key part is 1184A requires DHS's regulations to ensure aliens leave when they do not comply with the status for which they were admitted. [00:51:26] Speaker 04: And that seems to have completely gone by the wayside. [00:51:29] Speaker 04: And I would also like to address the wild hypothetical. [00:51:34] Speaker 05: But both the government and the intervener emphasize the words seeks to enter the United States. [00:51:40] Speaker 05: They say that's an entry condition. [00:51:42] Speaker 05: And I realize you may disagree with that. [00:51:46] Speaker 05: But why is that an unreasonable way to read the statute? [00:51:50] Speaker 05: Because if that's a reasonable way to read the statute, that solves that problem, doesn't it? [00:51:56] Speaker 04: if it were a reasonable way. [00:51:59] Speaker 05: Tell me why it's unreasonable to read the statute that way. [00:52:05] Speaker 05: It speaks to enter. [00:52:08] Speaker 04: Your honor, it's because of 1184A, which says that you have to maintain the status for which were admitted. [00:52:14] Speaker 04: And if you were to take that language for any other visa, you could say that all of them are entry requirements. [00:52:21] Speaker 04: The tourist visa, [00:52:22] Speaker 04: You don't prohibit those people who enter to perform labor. [00:52:27] Speaker 04: But if you, they could say, hey, we've entered and so now we can allow you to work. [00:52:34] Speaker 04: And this isn't a wild hypothesis either because the State Department is already doing this. [00:52:39] Speaker 04: It just has not been challenged yet. [00:52:44] Speaker 04: And the key thing is that this sets down the visa requirements and in every court case, [00:52:52] Speaker 04: ever looking at student visas or any nonimmigrant visas have treated the requirements as applying for the alien's entire stay. [00:53:03] Speaker 04: And there's a huge number of cases dealing with student visas. [00:53:06] Speaker 04: They're not dealing with the question whether legality of regulations, but they're all treating student visas as the requirements applying from start to finish. [00:53:20] Speaker 07: All right. [00:53:20] Speaker 07: Thank you. [00:53:21] Speaker 07: Madam Clerk, would you call the next case?