twelve thirty one b to the steps that are available to the executive branch in removing an alien from the united states specifically it authorized the removal of an alien to his country of birth without qualification in addition  well as the order from the immigration judge that they shall be moved to somalia now in this case however the immigration court proceedings were not prescribed or transcribed because there was no appeal to the board of immigration appeals what is ordinarily transcription different than the statute and consider new tom and i certainly can't speak to what the board of immersion feels what a result that's the whole point is that i represent essentially the immigration enforcement authorities i don't really represent the board of immigration appeals because the twelve thirty one be too happy to be presented in the first instance to the supreme court now if the supreme court decides for professional reasons they want a district court to take this fact finding in that regard that's one thing it's quite another thing for petitioner to go directly into district depending on which of the number of aliens that are involved and they were moved to a third transit country and then flown into somalia flown primarily mostly into mogadishu and they're dropped off that is removed that is removal for the purposes of the united of or should be just would be aware of the uniform interpretation of the prior statute and should be understood to have accepted that interpretation unless there were state clearly disagreement with it  phrase the syntax and geometry of twelve thirty one feet to the requires that the entire provision including introductory clause all the way through the end of subclause seven must be read t involve the question before the court here involved the question of what is the country for purposes of designation it did not it was not a situation where there was a final order of removal and the question is occur post finality of the order of removal and as you and your question earlier initiated we are not challenging the order of removal we can see that the order for move all is appropriate for purposes of this litigation  reference to twelve fifty two f one kept saying instead of operation operation and force the statute only uses the word operation we are not challenging the operation of twelve thirty one he were another reason that the dhamma decision should not be followed is that it would result in using another canon of statutory construction it would make certain provisions superfluous in particular it would make step two of the statute with respect to require any attorney general to first remove to their country of nationality superfluous under the circumstances here where as i said the clients our clients were both nationals  connection between an alley and the country the greater the need for acceptance so if it is in fact the case where you are a national of a different country from where you were born all the more reason the congress would have expected required acceptance from where you were born and not a national because you are obviously more connection to the place you are a national citizen then where you happen to have been born but are no longer  furthermore if that's what they intended you expected in the spin the third step would be able to remove to the country that you asked a country of nationality and citizenship but that is not one of the sub seven criteria you look to the warden of the jail in which you know in resides as the custodian for purposes he has but the courts have recognized that there may be exceptions in the exceptional circumstances and we would submit th is an exceptional circumstance there's twenty seven hundred individuals around the country and we don't know who they are we don't know where they are and we don't know who their quot jurisdiction twelve fifty two genie only prevents the court from exercising jurisdiction over certain discretionary decisions and that's exactly what we're asking for here as an injustice