of my time for rebuttal thank you this appeals about whether montreux to johnny should get a bond hearing not about whether he should be released from by his detention just an individualized bond hearing notified so maybe you want to start with why did at this point yes your honor i'd like to make three responses to the government's move this argument which appears to rely on the assertion that this case is no longer governed by twelve twenty sixteen rather by twelve thirty one our first response to that is that for purposes of the constitutional and constitutionally guided arguments that we're making today that just doesn't matter we don't think that either while it might be slightly more difficult to adjudicate our constitutional doubt argument in the present circumstances which still have an argument that detaining someone for twenty months without a bond hearing i all i think that this is clearly a case in which even even if he is presently under thirty one a day as the government seems to be intimating i'm not sure whether they've committed to that standpoint but the case is capable of repetition yet of baiting to happen i mean that i'm not certain whether you can segment the time out of his life that way there's a case called only a day g which makes the point that the clock never stops ticking on your life and i don't know whether it matters i don't know whether examine the statute you'll see that even if it matters which statute we're going under which we can test and even if going under twelve thirty one a for now would moot the case under some theory honor i think the question is if it has anything changed and if you apply to all thirty one any one b two this is going to still be a twelve twenty sixty ca and just appeal this just as it was when we filed it whether or not the alien has conceded the court ability under that interpretation if the be a loser the detainees file it's ok to hold him and remove all detention indefinitely without ever giving him a bond hearing under that the court therefore stated that it had no occasion to decide whether joseph hearings adequately protect the rights that's call twenty sixty detainees and although the more court upheld the constitutionality of twelve twenty sixty as applied to an and you know can't we infer from that if that were so as you have indicated they would have dealt with that at that point i mean they don't you know they don't probably not at all your  honor i disagree with oh i'm sorry well i'm just saying i mean if they had mentioned joseph that might be a little bit different but i mentioned just at the end there so they're aware of just that and they don't they don't see the problems that you see your honor they mention it's only to say that they were not going to consider its adequacy on this occasion that's why they mentioned it and that's explicit in the decision courts including justice kennedy who provided the fifth vote for the majority will hold an alien has a right to an individualized bond hearing of twelve twenty six the detention goes on for an hour and on a reasonable length of time in this case  it's not concede remove ability indeed has substantial arguments against removal and it's been held without a bond hearing for twenty months the period that the government doesn't even try to justify in terms of having any reasonable relation to removing him perhaps the most which set the stage for the discussion that we've been having and it appears from letters recently submitted by the government that these eleventh hour rulings have occurred repeatedly that's difficult for me to avoid in  also emerges implicitly from the supreme court's decision to more versus kim the court held ins advised us that the government can't hold an alien indefinitely and moved from whole detention but rather after six months must demonstrate a significant japanese because there was no place people there didn't look like that there could ever be a place to send them that's not the case here it's just a question of is there a point where the government has to show that the time congress gets pretty definite you know stiction into the agency as far as that goes somebody's got that tension that the courts aren't going to i don't think you're ever going to see the court saying well it has to be forty five days it has to be ninety days that has to be such and such and i don't think that you will see that occurring but is there a point where it just gets too long and the government has to justify somewhat how why it's taking so long and that would be pretty that would be i would have to say fact intensive  be put back on track but there's an element of speculation in both situations even though no one is about indefiniteness and one is supposedly about on a reasonable notice but beyond proffered another alternative which is the one taken by the sixth circuit in leaders hansen where on a much clearer standards based approach was used that is more fact specific as your honor suggested in that case it was held that  an alien who's in twelve twenty six you tension can bring to haiti this petition in which he alleges that he's been held beyond the time reasonably necessary to complete removal proceedings in timely fashion detention switch to eight u s cities direction twelve thirty one as mentioned in a letter submitted to the court the government has actually reached that issue in a another appeal that's pending before i want to get into that when i discuss the merits but but it's perhaps appropriate at this point which is the case seems to evolve and it's our position that we need to look at the correctness of the district court's opinion based assuming he prevail there are a whole number of possibilities and we're getting to the point where it becomes very speculative exactly what would occur and it becomes very difficult to formulate legal position  pilot that's correct but as we stand here today we still don't know whether he will there's been a representation that apparently he intends to do so but people change their minds so we don't know today for sure since it hasn't been done whether or not it will  fact happen secondly if it does happen in getting to the issue of the possibility of repetition he would appeal his removal based on these thresholds convictions which are actually already before this court because they go to whether or not he was subject to mandatory detention so presumably if the court felt that it had to address that issue there is a record before the court that would be adequate to make that assessment speculating i mean you could file a petition for review just car could find that you know the criminal conviction convictions are not qualifying right until reverse and then we know for the proceeding getting back to to some of the other issues that were briefed in that case there's been a lot of challenges made to the general legal framework that governs these types of proceedings and i think it's very important in this case to look specifically at the facts before the district court judge at the time the district court ruled on this matter mr to johnny already had an appeal before the b i a pending so in terms of the time that was in terms of the actual merits of the threshold criminal issues the issues of the moral turpitude and the issue of whether or not mr two shot he committed an aggravated made so my point is by the time the district court ruled the i j a had made his final decision to remove her removal there had been the merits determination and he had ordered mr to john removed by then so there was there there was no argument about the joseph standard that really could be presented to the district court because it had been superseded by the final merits determination by the if it was done in connection with a credit card fraud and we think that under law by law that type of statute just on its face  two crimes involving world that would not require the monetary amount the second would be an aggravated felony involving a loss to the victim in excess of ten thousand dollars and it's our position that you would qualify under both under either under either alaska on the issue and what the standard is because there's been a lot of talk about how you know speculative it is that he could be back in the seems the situation and jacobus says that dismissal of the case on ground would be justified only if we're absolutely clear that the litigant no longer had any need for the judicial protection that sought i think it's quite clear that he will indeed  we could find ourselves in a few years right back at the same position on his new review facing yet another eleventh that he won in this case and then surely back there could be yet another eleventh hour v i i decision and yet another move this argument in any event how speculative really is it let's think about this calculates that came down from the supreme court last year in which the  events as they were before the district court because if you really took the government up on that i don't think would happen if she was here wouldn't have a p i a ruling that's occurred so that argument strikes me as a little bit don't you're honest with respect to the merits arguments that we got into briefly here i'd just like to reiterate that the joseph standard that we are advocating is as just as prior suggested in his  degradable among reason and i don't think there's any question that on both aggravated felony and on moral turpitude this petitioner has at least met that standard good morning again we're back in