the foregoing reasons, the government’s Motion to Strike is granted in part and denied in'part. The plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment is denied in full, and the government’s and intervenors’ Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment are granted in full. An appropriate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. 2 . The plaintiffs’ operative complaint was brought by HAP and four shepherds, including both H-2A shepherds as well as a shepherd who .is a U.S. citizen, See Second Amended Compl. ("Compl.”) ¶¶ 4-8, ECF No. 58. The Court previously held that foreign sheepherders do not fall within the zone of interests protected by the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA”) and thus dismissed those plaintiffs from the case. See Mem. Op, at 28-29, ECF No. 83; see also Mem. Op. at 8, ECF No. 90 (<HOLDING>). The plaintiffs now challenge this holding
holding that an alien is only lawfully admitted for permanent residence for purposes of the ina if his or her adjustment to lawful permanent resident complied with substantive legal requirements and that because the alien failed to show that she had complied with the relevant substantive legal requirements the ij correctly determined that she had not been lawfully admitted for permanent residence and was not entitled to  212c relief holding that the commandant of the united states disciplinary barracks and the united states are identical parties holding that a motion to reopen to apply for an adjustment of status based on an unadjudicated visa petition filed by a united states citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse must be denied holding that a lawful permanent resident alien is entitled to seek relief under ina  212c holding that hap falls within the zone of interests protected by the ina because at least two of its members are lawful permanent residents of the united states