can be different for one thing versus another administrative finale it's not administrative finale for talking about review at the idea yes and it would be nice if this actually was it's already happened so if you want to pursue see you have to bring the proceeding to say you know you may let him out under it guess what he really should be detained under siege bring you bring that station when you see it is his they are not challenging doesn't need to be in custody but that's not really before us is it with the courts as a statutory issue right so regarding the statutory issue and we think it's twelve twenty six because there's still proceedings that are taking place based on the proceedings that your client is going through now he will be removed to mexico or he could be removed somewhere else now is that w i think it is wrong because i think it severely minimizes when actually it's happening in this case so what the other possibility is there to two that i've just but that remains in the united states as beneficiary relief under the convention against torture which we're party to and i think somebody who says it really has a right to be here now there's two possibilities either and so sorry because i don't claim that it keeps him from being removed to mexico i didn't think that based on the papers that there was a through alternative that he would essentially stay here and not be removed people with that if the government can find a third country he can be removed to that country but there might be proceedings tenser children those question before they can take place there might be additional ministry to proceedings removal order the they've been granted withholding of removal but presumably they remove the order is still in effect is it not it hasn't been rescinded or anything else the consequences because of the removal order are still being defined in these proceedings so the way i was hearing the grisha proceedings and said there's a lot of things that can happen to remove water can be vacated it can be reopened it can be withheld it can be not tied in different wa the question is are we in the removal here we're not in the removal period because nothing intro anyone is happening the government's not either they have cycled through countries and there's no other country which means that absolute decision  binding that you probably would be killed but the question is you know with the government be involved in any way the immigration judge found credible and found it probably would be tortured but that's not the end of the inquiry the still other legal and factual issues that need to be decided but if i go to the philadelphia based on the government's argument which i think could never broader be like that person i just described who i go to immigration work with in the removal period even though there is not even though there's never been a hearing on their application for relief from the movi really a year and a half sick as you can hear it depends on the court jurisdiction different courts have different backgrounds but then they'd been increasing and you know going to the backlogs withholding proceedings to them point regarding the third country if there is one you know the great if they would let us know put aside that clients you know when you're sitting in custody will save the whales could i go they don't necessarily within an order of a mover and that's very important because the young team can only see review of the removal or even in the know up to twelve thirty one it says all issues raised on appeal should be it is proceeding here it went from the immigration court to the b s a to this court then back to the da then back to the immigration court now it's at the immigration courts either he could win his case and since he actually is very happy that he would be killed i think go on you know the first case that took your county prison was a withholding case and i had a master counter here in august and i took that case five years ago and he was a gore county prison for close for it to about two and a half years before he was released through completion and still the supreme court saying you know we're still dealing with section two hundred thirty one the tension even though we were can't be affected that doesn't change the statutory scheme or the detention authority under which an argument can be made that we're talking about a circumstance that so far off the job is traversed if if that's so there are you saying that  at other countries but the same time they have a lot invested in this case i think they're going to see it out when you start looking at them and i was just wondering if you can actually be removed while he has a pending case i don't believe