enters an order removing that alien based on the immigration officers review of the evidence at a quick time as a point of reference in this process the earliest place generally an interview room with several immigration officers without process the alien is not informed of the right to appeal and what is necessary to protect their interests and simply moved on out of the country now initially honors we would submit to the district court improperly deny for failure to exhaust administrative remedies for purported failure to a t she was a temporary resident as a crime or you know it is important to focus on the fact that all we are asking in this case is that we will be afforded a hearing we are not asserting that if this hearing were to take place that we would win the reason the other independent for barring her even if she was a lawful temporary resident yes your honor however i would argue that the when there was an issue of whether she still had temporary residence or whether her permanent residen you raised in the first go around you know your honor and that's what i have that we're all the issue is in the fact that if we're there for looking at pragmatically at the situation where she's placed in this room with this information officer yes she may the evidence suggests that she may have told them that she doesn't have any type of legal resident that she doesn't have any type of darkness to be here but it ignores the situation of she could have any course in this type of situation and that's what we're sort of situation when there's an issue of whether she'd had residents who would argue that she has some type of reviewed revisit this issue the fact that this was in fact has to be brought up in other words the immigration officials are faced with hundreds of people every day is the immigration service go wrong that's the problem and i think that's what we're looking at at the equity in the situation she was is an equitable another one oh i did i would argue it's not because right now we look at an equitable she had a perhaps claim to be in the united states which she did not raise at that time and then she was summarily ejected from the united states reenters was summarily rejected again now wants to challenge the original by making a false statement to the immigration service there's nothing in the record the story on nothing in the record so can we assume therefore that she committed a crime when she made this was that i would say that we can't i would i would say that we can assume that she made this because if we're looking simply this is what the immigration officer whose business is at the brain you know whether you saying no the only evidence we have is that she did well i think that we're placing an extremely heavy burden on think if i could direct your attention to the supplemental record at page forty nine and about halfway through where what this is what has been explained to her about halfway through i'm starting three paragraphs down this may be your only opportunity presented from nation to me and serves to make a decision in the next sentence as you may be subject to criminal or civil penalties even if you give misinformation so i think that she's entirely reasonable doubt if she didn't know truly what her status was she would err on the side of caution well there's two things going on here i don't understand that that much of your argument was she was she had a right to be in the united states which she failed to disclose that's the problem the united states we should we should let her back in anyway because she was she was she had a right to come into the country that's only part of the problem the problem is is that she tried to come in with false identification your honor again i would submit that i don't think that that has been definitively proven i think that when i want to bring up these question was you've had an opportunity to this point at some point to say we would like a hearing because she disputes that she showed false i d at the border and if he didn't show false i d and she's a lawful temporary r then she had a right to come in and we want to hearing in order to be able to prove that but we haven't even got just the question to i think was we haven't even got of any anything at this point that says she didn't she she she she denies that she that she lied to the border agents with her you know her they had my client's fingerprints they had they had they had her fingerprints they had a system where they could have brought it out to her right in front of her and i understand him if he didn't say a word about it apparently what a lot of has he said she never said a word about it but doesn't she have an obligation to stand them say look i'm a lawful keeper a resident you've got to treat me so i think it's fair to assume you're honored to be one of the suggestion that she didn't know exactly what her what her or her status was if we look at the record immigration officer your honor this was a this was a situation that can happen over over a ten year period when we look at this time so i would submit that it's reasonable that she didn't know what was going on and i think that if we look at what she was explaining to her in this kind of in this kind of atmosphere where we know information you will be subject to criminal for its criminal proceedings i think that if she didn't know truly exactly what was going on she could it's risible soon as she would have been she would she would possibly even hear of criminal proceedings so good she believe of immigrants a burden to ask a person face to face and and my question in my answer that your honor i don't think she truly knew what her status was i really do not and i think considering the fact that she could have been subject to criminal penalties she was told this directly right or face that she wanted to sort of caution i think that's just as reasonable to assume that she did have you she was that you criminal catalyst for what you've already done and i understand that your honor i understand your honor but that doesn't take away from the fact that if she had some type of residence status she was entitled to hear if she was not ashcroft which states that if technically before the second time you reply you are applying for something that would have cured that prior deficiency that it that the restatement does not bar tact of the of the prior questions or lawful status so that you and i would say no i would say we do have a right to attack or even considering reinstatement as you mentioned ten years before is there a statute of limitations any place and this court suggested the most straightforward interpretation of an immigration law and respective situation differentiating between l p r and temporary residence is that they should be treated equally now although this was technically an essay w context the other amnesty congress includes language in one section of the statute but i'm listening another section it is presumed to be intentional and i was from the celebrations united states therefore in the absence of further language of differentiating treatment between lawful residents and temporary residence it would be unfairly learning it please the court my name is melanie sander and i represent the government in this matter your honor this is a seemingly complex set of issues before the court could take and each issue individually each issue has a very has admitted whether she was ordered removed under the expedited per removal provisions which she has admitted and whether she is in l p r or a lawful permanent resident or refugee aren't asylum she is creating this fiction that section has numerous differences from the soft provisions in that section her ability to travel was highly limited in fact to be admitted to the united states after departure a number of conditions she had reached six in fact and she did not qualify for three of those she had been absent for more than thirty days she had been absent for an aggregate period of more than ninety days to the minute she had been gone for four months she didn't have her lawful temporary residence card and here i would submit that the court has had questions about her state of mind did she know she was a temporary resident but she honestly answer that question certainly although it's not the record on the keil the record ordered to be submitted from the commissioner for the d h s s feeling file reveals that simply fourteen days after she was ordered removed  to lie about that the questions of which person counsel has raised questions are direct questions do you have a right to that right reside in the united states where were you living they are questions designed to intimidate or simple questions designed to elicit truthful answers and certainly had they not harsh than somebody of the possibility of criminal prosecution for lying under oath that would ra questions in other criminal prosecutions there were criminal prosecution that grows from that it's simply analogous to a miranda warning so it's not any intent to intimidate it and if i just live her rights and responsibilit going back to the issue of the differences between twelve fifty five eight temporary residents and start a temporary residence so our temporary residence adjust to permanent residency in an on a magic procedure after certain there's been a question of what is her status she is in fact in the sort of limbo status of having this lawful temporary resident status however she's not entitle three in or because she had been gone for so she did not she did not finish the process and if this point the agency is aware of its error and not following through what she failed to appear for her second interview and terminating her temporary residen  that does not affect this petition in any way because the questions are beyond the scope of review allowed in twelve fifty two feet subsection eat into that i would also a mexican national so she would not be able to qualify for some kind of waiver or even the traditional adjustment of status application based time attention for a visa on her immigration court or immigration purposes does not have a statute of limitations ok so they could sit on their rights for forty years come back and  counsel for the government pointed out try to point out certain points that record that my client was out of the country during certain times and tried to make an ex post facto determination on what mike what my client's status would be unfortunately she is not the judge in this respect and that's what we're asking for whereas if these issues exist and we can't determine that we can't negate that they might exist this is simply because the facts of what we're saying that she should have got some type of hearing on these issues now in regards to  the council's arguments for the way that the questions are set up they may not have the intent to intimidate but they certainly can have that effect i don't think it's reasonable to state that i don't think it's unreasonable to say that she couldn't sit in this room in the beginning we know that she did have temporary resident one time we know that she said made an application for a permanent residence we know that application was not tonight clearly the immigration judge can hold this case in abeyance if it were put on remand to hold it in advance and send it over bring up this for five years minimum or seven years your honor i can't comment on an issue simply by the fact that that my client came to us after this after the the second time that she got caught by the border