when it held that in action for mandamus on an application for adjustment of status filed by a point of view was subjected to reinstated removal order was barred by twelve fifty two a five because the application was quote inextricably linked to the plaintiffs removal order why what's your client's goal and all of this you would like to become a us permanent resident if you did what would happen to the removal order the removal order would the removal order would still be there strictly linked to an application for adjustment of status is that they meant that the removal order could have to be valid invalidated before the application for adjustment of status could be granted that's because it was a reinstated removal order that they were talking about immoralities and don't go out and reinstate or remove the order you cannot be granted adjustment of status unless that reinstated removed order is first vacated because the reinstated removal order prohibits a grant of adjustment of status that's under twelve thirty one eighty five the difference here is that in your case it's in direct point by me or it's it's it's it's it's interact in it in the sense that that the removal order could not be executed with the hope purpose of an orders to be executed if you never gets executed then it stops having any any force or fact i think the difference between a removal order which is linked to an application for adjustment of status and one that is not is that for it to be inextricably linked the removal order has to be terminated first before the application for adjustments that it's can be granted that's that that's the difference and that's tristen versus whole under the difference between inextricably linked rule order and a roarin or move orders you have to terminate the is it is there with if the order is in strictly linked it has to be terminated first before they before you can residency would vitiate the force of the move well it becomes a question of why did they dug out of use that particular phrase why did they use that particular phrase in it would inevitably cause the move will order to become ineffective it could be your honor but that's not what the ninth circuit meant in morale is and that's not what it meant in cripple versus holder and that's not and that's not the case not that's not the case here as a district don't you have an appeal pending in the ninth circuit of the of the of the order of removal yes so they're all technical denial it's actually appeal from an action for judicial review under the administrative procedure act in which we asked the district court to declare the decision of the you know you are c i s denying  my client's application for adjustment status because they supposedly had lack of jurisdiction as not in accordance with law and i can i ask i see your time has expired this is still pending in the ninth circuit isn't it the appeal  i believe the rose but that's a separate case than this case although were you to prevail in either or both would one be redundant your honor in my professional opinion the chances of the thing circuit case and prevailing are de minimus i say so this is plan b this is this is a client came to me and said he doesn't like the ways cases going is there anything court just heard this is essentially a plan b approach that mr singh is taking to have his status decided by a court whether the ninth circuit or the southern district new york provision of law a petition for review filed with an appropriate court of appeals shall be the sole and exclusive means for judicial review of an order of remove your adversary's saying he's not seeking review of the order of removal in the one court of appeals the appropriate court of appeals and the appropriate court here is the ninth circuit the ninth circuit currently has pending before the far challenging a motion to reopen that raised issues relating to mr sing status and also which agencies the appropriate agency to adjudicate the adjustment of status application mr singh argued that first in his two thousand and seven pm far to the ninth circuit and again raise that issue in his two thousand and thirteen p a far to the ninth with the ninth circuit he was on a plane the moment tonight sergei granted a stay so he was essentially removed in violation of the ninety ninth circuit's stay the government then worked to bring him back and did the government have notice of that stay at the time the plane took off brought back in your honor he was paroled back into the united states and parole is the procedural mechanism by which an individual can come back into the united states and individual once they leave cannot just enter without some sort of paperwork or document so the parole was a mechanism the necessary now the ninth circuit has reached that conclusion in the two thousand and twelve decision on the p f are yes it's stated that the government's rania's removal did not count as a departure of the immigration laws is leaving the united states they really didn't discuss whether he's arriving elite or not they didn't put it in those terms but they certainly said that his erroneous removal or deportation do not count as a departure of the immigration a case called arab belly versus your arab matter of arab like they said that if a person departs the person leaves the united states and advance parole they're not departing nevertheless they will be treated as an arrival elian when they're help in his case that we reinstate him to his previous situation but just said we find there was no departure therefore we still ruvell proceedings it's just very difficult for us to deal with a case in  pretty much i think w conclude yes your honor but the problem is is that the ninth circuit held that if we file the petition for review seeking review of the u s c i s is denial or just been a status they would deny it because it because of because if i always the rule of because that rule orders not to extract we look to that rule or that's what they said encrypted versus although you're seeking you know more or less the same relief or relief with the same goal here and this is looking like a multiplication  proceed well your honor the theory under which they're proceeding the ninth circuit is not the same theory that we're proceeding here in the knights of the council in the nights are going to my correct yes your honor in a nice circuit what he tried to do is he's trying to reopen the apple removal order so he can apply for adjustment of status before the immigration judge and it's our position it was is our position and that he cannot do that because the immigration judge does not have jurisdiction over an application for adjustment of status