Mr. Goschi?

Mr.

Chief Justice, and may it please the court.

A permit application is not final agency action.

It's a request to someone else to take action.

Filing a permit application triggers a back-and-forth process whose outcome is, by definition, a moving target until a decision on the permit is issued.

Treating an application as final would just lead to a multiplicity of suits throughout a permitting process, which I think defeats the whole point of the finality requirement.

Rebuttal, Mr. Joshi.

Mr. Ghoshi.

Mr.

Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, a permit application is not final agency action.

It's a request to someone else to take action.

Filing a permit application triggers a back-and-forth process whose outcome is, by definition, a moving target until a decision on the permit is issued.

Treating an application as final would just lead to a multiplicity of suits throughout a permitting process, which I think defeats the whole point of the finality requirement.

Now, Respondent says that the application reflects some internal Air Force decision to continue these activities for the next three years if Guam issues a permit.

Rebuttal, Mr. Joshi?

Once you have to look back to some prior question, why aren't you just applying the standard there?

So, uh, two things.

The first thing I'll say is you're not r-- I, I just wanna be clear about this.

The IJ is not reviewing the immigration officer's decision.

The IJ is taking a fresh look at the evidence and determining whether, in fact, the LPR fit one of those six categories.

So that, that's number one.

Number two, uh, the reason for that oddity is actually just once you stare at the INA long enough, you realize that that has to be how it is because, uh, number one, the INA says, and this is, uh, 1229A3, uh, it's at page 5A of our opening brief, that the removal proceedings, setting aside expedited removal, are the sole and exclusive procedure for determining, um, admissibility or removability.

Rebuttal, Mr. Joshi.