petitioners was an alien and i had to prove that by clear and convincing evidence to prove any image it presented at the eight seventy it didn't present any other evidence  seventy is the fruit of a d h s s egregious violation of the petitions fourth amendment rights and that the petition for review should be granted and to be a order to suppress right seventy and terminate the one of the facts in the record that show there was an egregious violation of his fourth amendment right the the facts in the record show that the petitioner was arrested by a border patrol agent on june eleventh two thousand and fourteen and that for two months the h s detained him right the arrest was a fourth amendment violation because of the provisions of a regulation to eighty seven point three d which require that the border patrol is have probable cause to begin with which is the issue any other case whether there are there's a there's not a lot of information in this record about the arrest are you arguing that or not i just want to know i didn't think your brief argued that separately  facts are in the record that show one there's no probable cause and two that it was an agreed that this situation was agreed has rises to the level and agree just unlawful arrest the  t the the requirement that the border patrol issue the warrant quickly after detaining an individual that's not that was they have to do with the facts out of the scene at the time he was taken into  has and we can tell i mean i think hanchen because i don't think you're really arguing about the arrest but with regard to the arrest itself again unlike the other case and we don't know where he was we don't know that he wasn't at a border actual border at trey we have no idea and also quite pointedly he never said didn't ask name once they had his name and they could have found the or other information and apparently did so i don't really it just seems like there's nothing about the arrest that's in the record that's sufficient to think that i understand what you're saying your honor and it is correct that there is not evidence here that would show that the actual at the point of contact when he was taken into custody that that in and of itself detention for two months without being told that he had the right to to consult with others that he had the right to consult with a lawyer that free legal services were available to him there was a penelope of of rights which the regulations this seventy which was the only evidence that the h s presented at that at the hearing and not only did they not present evidence at the hearing it even though they had the burden of proof when the motion to suppress was filed they didn't answer and when the appeal was filed they didn't answer and when the case was before the board and the petitioner asked the board to issue a summary decision to deem whatever presumption of regularity was over this i a seven to rebut it they didn't answer that either one was the interview where the admission was made was it towards the beginning of the two month attention or towards the end at the end of the two months he was for two months with out contacting anyone and without being informed it was only after two months that he was allegedly given a form of em for four for which is a disclosure form that the border patrol supposed to give him two months earlier when he expressed a fear of removal i understand the government's brain they are not they're not contesting that there was a regulatory violation but they are argument two months of a car separation without legal process did not diminish the course of effect of the violation that occurred when the border patrol didn't comply with the regulation of the b s a i rely on this independent information graham excuse me to the bay i rely on this independent information gram they the b i a did did not specifically address that the immigration judge did what the b s a said was that the admission to the removal process under i need to thirty five and that's what's really at issue in both of these cases under expedited removal and alien who do this every hundred within one hundred miles of the border within fourteen days of their arrival is subject to an entirely different process that normally has it's completely on reviewable by this court what does that mean first of warrantless arrest is authorized that's under i a e a to eighty seven eight to the recorded before border patrol immigration officials and if the alien if if they are removeable the second step is to determine whether that alien has expressed a fear of persecution or any other fear of return if invokes a credible fear he claims a credible fear and then that obligates under the day to thirty five he must go before an asylum officer to make that determination if the asylum officer phones in fact he does not have of the earlier alleged violations someone to tell us why that's correct because that's the only thing we're going to review it's the only thing you say should break i don't understand what any of the rest of this has to do with it i can tell me what it has to do with it i'll listen but i don't know what  shook it gets to the point why and why was he ever going before an asylum officer because he made it and in an affirmative attempt to claim by making that affirmative a attempt to claim asylum he initiated the you know it's entitle to a strong presumption that it's not it's actually true and it lays out the whole of the information we need here he received the form four four four which is required by statute he had all of the advisors read to him during that interview in spanish all of the information regarding the questioning it's laid out in an exacting detail where he admits is illegal sure what he did when he got what he raised the issue of fear it took rights and he can try to put together his argument any any additional evidence that he would have and then i have august fifth twenty fourteen which is less than two months such as ever happen and it's only what about ten days after his credible fear orientation he has his credible fear interview in spanish where all of his advisors are good given he can see he concedes it is from el salvador he makes his claim regarding his potential fear independently generated and those statements are completely reliable they're under oath and they are thoroughly recorded by the asylum officer in this case what was there is not what was the notice he was supposed to have received after forty eight hours there is no probable cause a multi year there is no more of that needs to be issued this is this is the process expedited removal and that's why i was walking the court through it it's not an issue that the overseas because this court doesn't review determinations in your  the forty eight hour rule doesn't apply and he could be detained for two months or longer yet until he's received the two step process that's articulated clearly and thirty five which is reason i'm having such a problem here is because your brief does not mean that not just without it it doesn't dismiss it but it says that it's not different argument that enter stan but you're standing here now and telling us that there was no statutory or regulatory violation in keeping him in two months without giving him any notice after forty eight hours and you know maybe you're right and maybe you're wrong but it  case outside of this regulation that required a warrant within two months i think this is a red herring there is no evidence in this record whatsoever that there was a lawful expedite we conducted by you saying there was no room expedited removal proceeding i don't see proceedings the credible fear interview does arise with in expedited removal proceedings does it mean that in this case that that's what occurred can annex is there ever an expert is there ever a credible fear interview outside of what legally ok and doesn't the regulation say if it if there is an expedited removal proceeding the forty eight hour rule doesn't apply and there can be an extended the tension if there is a  that didn't happen here if there is a lawful expedited removal proceeding the border patrol agent has to inform the person of the of the reason that he's being detained what the charges against him and to allow him to make a response on a for