father was dying when she attempted to return to the us she was issued an order of expedited removal less than she was deported less than three months later she returned to the us without authorization and was arrested by d h s s and issued an order  reinstatement of removal and may th two thousand and sixteen in tucson she was then transferred to tacoma washington where she was detained and issued a reasonable fear interview before an asylum officer and then the immigration judge when the judge in new reinstatement of removal order that tacoma immigration judges reasonable fear determination and the terminations of removal proceedings by the new york immigration judge all through the lack of jurisdiction over the substance of what they knew yo is based on the record on which the removal orders based so the term a nation occurs after the reinstatement order but prior to that what holding decision from the i j a and so i think it's unclear when the minister of record period  stop the final order of the new york case was after everything that i grew under before i think that that would be a problem your honor it's such a confusing situation no he doesn't own back let's go back to the thing that you're really authorize sins but appears to require reinstatement of removal orders in this situation and i don't see any other stance you that supersedes  that it doesn't apply a recess that it doesn't apply if there is something in process somewhere else so you're under the law is one hundred percent clear that's well thirty one dollars a five is not required by law that's supported but it's a supporter of whether it's required three says unless otherwise specified in this chapter the other proceeding is the sole perceiving but in the same chapter specified his reinstate ment of removal so it seems to me that you're reading out that initial phrase unless otherwise provided i don't think so you are because then the matter of gnc decision would make no dissent sense right so a matter of g and c the board talking past each other i think a five authorizes reinstatement in this situation ok that's the starting point it authorizes it doesn't specify that it can be done only if nothing else is going on in fact it's very broadly worded at any time after the reentry and i don't see anything in three that even speaks to that are you know and if it might speak to that the initial phrase points you to somewhere else that's more specific that unless otherwise provided in this chapter so i don't see why they're even in conflict i don't buy the reading and me matter of gnc of these provisions is that you can be the other cases you're relying on is this was all i mean in a sense there were two separate removals here in other words in all the other cases i believe the removal that was going on and that was pending was with regard to the removal order they were trying to get a removal in reinstatement of the same removal order or the same removal incident but here the st proceeding was about the fact that she had right so it was a whole different and it was independent of what was going on in new york wasn't the same thing as what's going on in new york and all the other cases where we're completely parallel proceedings this is not a parallel proceeding at all so in matter of before the the i j a which he could either terminator not terminate the same order right well there was an expert removal then an m t a right and so the judge was deciding whether to buy the game the judge in new york was not adjudicated anything having to do with either her st or nd crossing of the border after those proceedings in new york but again those were separate later different right but that same thing also happened i think in going to remarry similar facts where there was an expedited removal and  the two that they're different on their temporal scope of the removal orders the other thing that is important in this case is that she was eligible for relief from removal and in fact had been set for a merits hearing in two thousand and fourteen with that for two thousand and seventeen merits mentioned the way is that the only reason you really care about this i'm really a little baffled about why this all matters so much is the is the reason because she could she could see cancellation from one hundred percent your honor yes and that's the only reason correct i mean i care about it also obviously for looking for the procedurally proper thing because this does happen a lot on this issue of the reinstated men where the reinstatement is issued while somebody is in removal proceedings and a lot of the times the judges believe that termination is required by law if you look at the board decisions that are cited in and lynn all of those cases the board says if the person is subject to ring in statement terminations required by law and so just say by the way the one thing i think you're right or about here is that he really didn't he was not precluded from reopening his own decision but i don't know why that has come out on how we get to it well it's interesting because the judge's decision actually says although this is a sympathetic case i'm bound by the side and actually wrong to me because that statute what it said you could reopen was the expediting removal not his own decision to terminate so and he didn't make any sense but but but then we have all these jurisdictional problems so the other issue just your honour's the notice issue because the judge never addressed this issue about not being respected petitioner was not served with a motion to terminate right and so repeatedly the attorney says i didn't get notice i didn't get notice and there's never a dress all fine but when we're in california and you're trying to get us to do you know what does new york proceeding which was after which didn't finish until well after this case was filed and in a situation i mean you might be able to get around the purposes of judicial review and so based on that everything that happened in this case full and then under benign to review of the order why isn't it the other way around that everything flows into what happened in new york later because i'll call on and  like this out there right this is a case where there's three different proceedings bibiana is the closest analogy to that and its assessment of where what venue is as opposed to jurisdiction is different but bibiana is clear on is that the proper place to raise a to review it especially because there can be no separate petition for review from the tacoma judge i'm sorry from the new york judge's decision right the new york judge ruled on term a nation even when it goes to the board it's not a final order of removal for purposes of judicial review so it must be zipped up into that benign analysis we're not reviewable at all potentially but then you want to understand that you are but then we've got a twelve fifty two dollars a two d problem on the legal and constitutional errors so in a case like this where there it's potentially a so but it's not your honor even if you look at the morality decision the two thousand and ten reinstatement case that's a case where it's a reinstatement order but the court is looking at the adjustment of status in that there's no final order in review the adjustment of status denial and in that case they review it and ultimately deny but they do review of the adjustment of status for legal error and i'd like to reserve my remaining time thank you thank you good morning may it please the court tony part injure for the attorney general like to just briefly addressed two cases cited by petitioner akala and then the matter of gnc just briefly akala does not mandate that a petitioner be permitted to challenge an agency decision to terminate in tandem with the reinstatement order in regards to gnc that case nor my read of the other cases cited by clearly where was the determination in new york that he could reopen his prior terminations and i didn't understand what he was saying because the statute he was relying on  address anything about reopening that decision to terminate and in say even see anything about reopening a reinstatement order was about reopening the underlying expedited underlying on the level order not the reinstatement let's say i thought that well  st of all i don't know if you have any reaction to that on the merits to that question where he was getting that from i didn't i understand your question i understand petitioners argument i don't i don't see i don't agree with the merits of that but notwithstanding that assuming that i as i was about to say that if we thought that that was so i would be curious to know what you thought of the merits of that why you don't agree with the merits i'd look at the reinstatement statute and i'm reading that you know granted in a like favorable to my client's position which is that it's it you know requires the rim with the expedited removal of the shell that's how i read that i decision as opposed to the order underlying their instruments i suppose i thought that was a problem on the other hand we is there no way it is your ultimate position of the jurisdictional issues that there would be no way to reach that legally if it were for let's assume was flat wrong yes your honor if there is that it is that simply no way to reach not in this court and i don't want to step two outside the record here there was an opportunity to review at the board there now that board decision if i understand this this court decided not to grant the motion to include that with the record i think that was  year after that board decision so there was an opportunity for review granted it wasn't in federal court but there was an opportunity for scrutiny to be applied to the i j s decision and in both instances the board you know upheld that decision could there have been an appeal from the board's decision in new york our position is no for further you know same reasons that there couldn't be in this court say there was a terminations proceeding and in los angeles and that would be that it's not a final removal notwithstanding any you know the sure there could be clear view this is one of those cases that retire justice kennedy called a problem without a remedy that would be  reviewable on a direct petition for review right so that's that's the case where the judge said that and in that case the expedited order had not been reinstated correct or not so there wasn't any final order  right ok and that's where the court says any remedies are available with a filing of the petition for a view if it's reinstated and so that's what exactly we've done here right i don't believe there would behave of the denial i mean th terminations decision just because of one thousand two hundred and fifty dollars to be nine which requires that all issues related are rising from a proceeding to remove somebody be raised in the petition for review there is no case on this and certainly if that is a potential remedy then the ising from relating to remove all have to be in one place it's not the same remote but it isn't if there is a conflict with the reinstatement statute it's still relevant and it's related to the reinstatement so even if the time cuts off at the decision in tacoma there's the court still has the trauma nation of the removal proceeding in new york that's properly in the record to review and so if the court determines that matter of gnc and the regulations