that in determining whether the children are at miscible as immigrants it says the lack of entry documents are no longer be a bar to admissibility so why doesn't that make this a challenge after the fact yes because what is presented before the court today is a legal question we're not asking the court to do anything that is beyond what twelve fifty two he allows we're not asking the court to go into the facts of what happened that that's to say they are no longer inadmissible were that the be the application the operation of the order would now be unlawful but those are all things the statute hoses on its face that we can't review  is significant in contrast to other types of a humanitarian parole under levon eighty to ninety five because bear an individual has to apply with the attorney general to seek parole it's done on a case language is significant it gives the children another benefit the ability to apply for l p r role for primary residence but it does not say when children need to apply for that right it does not say that r to remove a child with s i j status there is no reason under that s i j statutes to treat children differently based on the paper group or proceedings that they've been placed into either expedited removal or removal remember it's at the government's discretion whether to place a child an expedited removal or standard removal proceedings the basis that these children's expedited removal orders and lack of entry circuit and the purpose of parole cheer and which is why it's significant and and distinct from the child's ability the children's ability to file for l p r is that it's about getting a child in administrative process because you can't get l p r simultaneously at the same time you get as i j in most instances there have to be an investigation about what their child meets the requirements for l p r and that's that twelve fifty two strips the court of looking to force their aside j rights then there is a constitutional issue because then there would be no form in which they would be able to vindicate their statutory rights and and permanent residence long term residency that you're arguing would provide sufficient connection to the united states for that sort of standing absolutely that stay here at doesn't mean that they'd only get to stay here if they filed for l p i that's not a top fifty five sets but doesn't doesn't that the header to that section it talks about special i there's a there's a narrow approach that you would have a state to seeing that the special and grant juveniles may have this kind of standing and connection to the united states but not neglected by one or more parents and two that it's not in their best interests to be returned to the countries from which they came then the child must go and apply to us c i s another federal agen invoke this constitutional right if we need to have that particular language yes but remember that if the children were removed that their ability to file for l p r their right to remain in the united states and not be returned to a country where it's not in their best interest that that p r application would be abandoned by regulation and they'd have to seek another way to come back to the united me substantial connections that we talked about in castro can it be argued that that these procedures in juvenile court and i gather we ha would mean if you by the government's argument that there's a basis to treat children with s i j differently based on the type of removal proceedings that they've been placed into and there's nothing in the essay day statutes we're we're is the really supported in supreme court precedent were perhaps in the language of castro that would suggest that those who were still seeking admission and it is even into our country and begin to develop the ties to go with permanent residence is constitutional status changes accordingly he continuously present president healy's entailed to a fair hearing on the one hand and cases including castro that say non citizens have due process rights is another important case for the court to consider and that webster v doe as another supreme court case that explains that if congress had intended to strip constitutional rights from someone they need to make that clear it's cases can be read together to give these children to tell us court to vindicate the children's s a g rights and the government answered each of vaccines in their response those arguments have been preserved because of that now to clarify the scope of relief that you're seeking i gather you're proceed with traditional twelve twenty nine eight removal proceedings is that right th encounter at the border no one is needed or paroled those determinations as to admission and parole i think is that is in many cases take place after the counter through some through interviews during for the then no i would say that there's no moment other than that but once you've gone through the mitchell process at the border and your determination as the the first officer that you encounter will generally determine whether you have any u perspective you could argue that hey that there had been expected a group of order and this is just an end around the flip of that is that they're tired of this i j status and just by necessity just wait time works you can have as approached twenty five being one with him for five years so the minimum is five years and then they have to be admitted in order to make it not ten years try to reenter and well physically present for it is not to return them to the country but to be returned for a minimum of five years or more is not losing a valuable right be revoked absent certain our limited out of that revocation such as marriage or turning twenty one the cannot be revoked without notice an opportunity for the alien all the requirements that would guarantee them grads of an immigrant these particular juveniles have been determined to be in a position where if they were to go back it would not be in their best interest among those things they could be harmed and isn't there isn't it let's say in these particular countries which are having some real issues but there's a good likelihood that they will be har that it's not irrational for congress to treat those who are encountered in the interview who are more similar to a citizens because they would cheer for a period of time differently than aliens who are just coming to the border or apprehended at or near the border i'm not sure i understand your be inside the united states that already have to go to a state court to get the predicate findings and it's already in the united states strong enough to do that then experience is not going to apply to them that's only for people who are stopped at the border or apprehended within a hundred miles and fourteen days of entry so you know in my mind it doesn't seem at all possible that somebody who had been here for less than fourteen days would already have gone to removed the next day basis be eligible for extra bedroom and would have to see into the timeline on the pool was but assuming that it functions as it normally would the pool the term mission would only come after the inspection at the border and determination of whether or not you were a they aren't sure roughly thomas can treat people arriving at the border such as it alls have been determined to be in castro very differently and can provide less process so which would be the case here they would in this manner that he's as i j individuals could only be deported through the standard removal proceeding would that have any impact on other classes of special immigrants understand your position is that the substantial connections here are no are no greater or no or maybe less why is that the case here why why do we not have the same kind of physically present and that's under eight c f r to forty five point one if they are removed those applications are deemed abandoned the types of relief that the government is arguing that their children might see if they're removed those aren't real we avenues of relief that are granted under the s i j statutes those are separate types of beliefs and to the extent that the government argued that the children might be  they were put they were given a credible fear in a credible fear interview only looks at whether the children are eligible for asylum on account of persecution by various ethnicity a particular social group it doesn't look at this actually required the court to say the best statute stops time but it any point after those expedited removal orders are entered we can look at what the government has done it doesn't matter if the attorney general has given them it and tearing him parole or perhaps that u s c i s is now or visit needed a new temporary status category which would allow them to stay here we have to ignore all of that but there are other cases that say you know that you can't ignore what congress intended by statute car in the first circuit or the subpanel on the second circuit also like to point out that what we're asking the court to do today is not as far as some other courts have gone including kapanga in the southern district of new york where the question there was whether in illian it whether an individual had properly had  properly revoked the government says a bit as the court held there that theory could still be jurisdiction to look at this question here there's no factual question at issue these children have given as a j status and the government agrees with that and eight u s c twelve fifty five age says explicitly what their rights are given that sh a status so there's no concern of running fifty two because we're not asking the court to entertain a factual question we're asking the court to entertain a legal question about whether the children by virtue of their sh t j status remain here and