issue that we're presenting of course is whether or not the notice to appear whether the arrest the immigration arrest that occurred back in two thousand and twelve and then again in two thousand and sixteen was do in properly the second issue is based on whether or not the judge erred on his findings for cancellation of removal specifically emphasizing categorically the good moral character component of the standard the most important thing for i think this court to consider when it's reviewing both of these briefs and when it's considering its decision in this case is e importance or the effect of an immigration arrest on the immigrant him or herself but these weren't immigration arrests they were do you do you are swear that they were your honor but subsequent or you know after the dui arrest immigration came in and made another arrest and i don't want to get beyond the scope of you know what's been briefed but just placing it in that context you have a criminal arrest where of course the court will certainly recognize you know eight six than fourth amendment rights but then you have a detainer coming in which is going to detain and restrain somebody from their liberty and in that were under a civil proceeding without many of the protections that you would have in the criminal proceeding so trying to under trying to look at this granted you know one is civil in one is criminal but the constitutional implications of that are very significant and again without getting beyond the scope of the brief but just explaining the importance of this issue you know that civil arrest that civil immigration of mass will certainly impact that person's right life right and potentially even their their criminal prosecution but that's not what's before the court before the court you know specifically on the case law is lopez mendoza which is in one thousand nine hundred four supreme court decision which recognized that when that immigration arrest is particularly quote egregious violation of the fourth amendment right also before the court of course is ma honor is that we now have a civil law enforcement agency out detaining and restraining the liberties of individuals and in this case one of the claims of agree just miss is the fact that they weren't that mr t s was not advised of his right to counsel but i would emphasize his right to consular contact and the reason i would emphasize that is that right only  and remove all proceedings it does but i also believe it attaches at the commencement of removal proceedings and in this case we have a little bit of a blurry timeline because there was actually an n t i issued in two thousand and twelve but it was never actually returned to the court and without getting into a rabbit hole of you know whether or not it was actually issued because it went to court we already for the proposition that there's a requirement of notice in that context not  our grounds would you were just to find one specifically whether or not there's a lot you're saying it was agreed just not to tell him so we would have to conclude that yes indeed he should have been told and i'm just asking you for where we would look to what basis we would reach that conclusion in this past this because for instance by analogy a defendant does not have to be told he has a right to counsel except in connection with interrogation correct when he's arrested a criminal defendant so what would be the rationale which we would conclude that at this point  gratian proceeding person should be told of his right to consular consultation in the facts of this specific case it would be in part because they initiated proceedings against him in two thousand and twelve although incomplete now the one thing i may be not making myself clear first of all is that the defendant's right to consular consul consultation usually these are matters of treaty which are between the sovereigns so i'm not sure what the you've given us authority that there even is a personal right here and then the question is whether if there is there's a right to know what of so help me out ok so taking that trying to answer that directly and taking in and sort of reverse order the article five of the  a convention would be regulation statutory i mean stature in a regulation it would be statutory immigration statutory everything you know and we know that from the decision which was articulated well  so if it's a statutory right it's not so much that it's a right i would argue of mr ortiz but it is a process that immigration is compelled or d h s s is compelled to follow and so when it doesn't follow the regulations are keeping regulations i mean statutes or not or when it doesn't follow the statutes i would say that that in and of itself you know opens the door for you know claims that they're talking about egregiousness under you know the fourth amendment and so we're conflating stacked very correct on the vienna side of it the right to counsel i think is where lopez and i don't mean to get too far into the weeds on this but you know lopez is looking i think more on the constitutional claim in the right to counsel and those things and i think even this court and the sense i have from that decision is that they're looking more at the constitutional right i think where the consular comes in is under the fifth amendment because you're talking about due process and it's under that fifth amendment that that's where d h s s becomes fully accountable so in this case just backing up i do think that if we accept that the initial encounter with ice in two thousand and twelve commenced removal proceedings even if defective and they don't argue necessarily that removal proceedings weren't  part of the discussion but assuming that now we're getting to the deceit that was employed by d h s two you know further it's rest and that is having him sign what to seat are you referring to your honor if we look in the record there were misrepresentations about if you don't we already have you on a deportation order they told him that that was his presupposition that he was already subject should be the consequence i think the consequence should have been the motion to suppress and you know my my time is running short but i'd like to make this point or expired i would like to make this point we have a very large law enforcement slash civil enforcement agency they should be held to a very very high standard in everything they do and when ever there is a misrepresentation that misrepresentation if it is show that they made the misrepresentation that in and of itself is agree just because to allow that size of an agency to operate based on misrepresentations even if they're relatively minor opens the door to a policy in a culture that misunderstanding that was in the hands of the government by virtue of this t p s application so even in the context of criminal proceedings we're talking about constitutional rights we have an independent source doctrine in the fourth amendment context that would say if the if the government had it legitimately from an independent source we don't suppress evidence your honor stand when i'm right in that in this case in one thousand nine hundred nine he filed a t p s application and presented under false or presumably false pretenses and misinformation so it's a question of timing even if they could have done it and i don't believe there's any indication in the record that you know we're here because we got you know in t p s you know we've got this t p s application what do you think of it they were here saying we got you in two thousand and twelve a notice to appear and then proceeded to give him a lot of bad information to get him to you know  everything that's in the notice he signed that wouldn't give you the relief you want and less i'm missing something your honor you know i said i'm going times myself i was not going to use criminal analogs but coming down here i think the issue is that the motion to suppress is to prevent the government from benefiting from the fruits of the poisonous tree and so that's been since point they knew the information you're talking about beforehand not it wasn't derived from the notice unless again we're missing something presumptive they had the information may be available to them i'm not one hundred  necessarily that on this record that they were saying at the time they detained him hey we have your t p s that's kind of they're coming after him to say but we had this information anyway that the agency had in depend in evidence  the deceitful conduct you're correct but that dates all of that information in the attorney was correct in stating that obviously all of that would predate the arrest our focus here is on the arrest itself in the information they seem to have attested to was that we have you on this two thousand and twelve and today i think i think you're correct your honor or if the issue was they picked him up on a database search they came in off the t p s application walked down and said hey we're detaining you here's the t p s you certified you're not an alien but that's not what happened here what happened here may please the court i matter maclaughlin i represent the respondent acting attorney general of the united states i'd like to thank you for the opportunity to appear by my b g see and i'd like to thank mr for make up for this collegiality throughout the throughout all of this  it is the government's position of this case is squarely governed by essentially two authorities one is lopez mendoza and the other is the jurisdictional limitation in the age of forty two a to be i which an immigration simple civil deportation proceeding the second is the holding that the body or identity of responded in a civil proceeding is never suppress a ball as a freedom an unlawful arrest even if it is conceded that the arrest was twelve it specifically says systems checks reveal that the subject applied for temporary protective status in one thousand nine hundred nine so at the time of the two thousand and twelve arrest he they already had access t information using his identity access the information regarding steve p s application and they had all of that available to them in the two thousand and sixteen whether the person who went to pick him up at the police station said something about an a or not doesn't really make a difference as far as i can tell and as judge reggie pointed out it it doesn't affect anything that took place after that was a discrete event that took place in a short period of time  image so i don't see any any impact whatsoever to the concept of deceit although i would point out if you wanted to go to criminal law cases you could find criminal cases that didn't even find a fourth a member of elation from police officers lying to people much less an egregious fourth amendment violation and there's certainly no allegation of a rule violation of some sort or is that answer your question but fundamentally here we have a we have a situation where the supreme court has said that the identity of individual is not suppress will and if you have other evidence of his alien to judge that individual is removable or at least if it's strictly the evidence of the alien age the burden is then on the individual to demonstrate their lawful presence in the united states but here the t p s application itself demonstrates both alien age and unlawful presence so the government had in his possession and presented to the the discretionary basis for denying based on the good moral character finding which actually wasn't a matter that was decided by the board if you look at the board's decision the board specifically did not reach the immigration judges alternate finding that the that the respondent was ineligible for cancellation removal that discretionary element once you've established statutory eligibility which includes hardship which is also discretionary then the immigration judge went further  based on your your criminal convictions i'm going to say i wouldn't grant in the in the exercise discretion either but that's not before the court at all that matter wasn't ruled out on by the immigration judge the only image that wasn't real and by the board the immigration judge ruled on both so the only matter that's actually for before the court of appeals here is the board's decision in which the board said this is really in fail to demonstrate statutory eligibility under the discretionary element of extraordinary an ex unusual hardship which the immigration judge said the evidence before him did not demonstrate anything beyond the ordinary hardship of individual being removed with his family or of the family members being removed from the country three four forty two the time line of the facts are laid out mr t s was held overnight july twenty fourth two thousand and twelve was told he was being held for immigration to arrive the next day the officers took him to  to the office and they had him sign papers for his deportation then in so i would submit your honor that on the record proceedings which would trigger all of the rights that mr t s would  officer on november tenth after reporting to his probation officer he was questioned by another man who only afterwards said he was from immigration the immigration officer arrested and searched him taking his guatemalan  passport from his pocket petitioner asserts that he was not advised of his rights to counsel or contact a consular official which i just want to emphasize that takes me back to what i open my argument with that he should have been provided his consular right  then he was taken to the d h s office in hartford and you know that's where a lot of the egregious conduct that we've already discussed occurred so that's the time line in the capsule i recognize that immigration may have had and prior to that arrest certain information but this is a civil matter statutory matter and he was entitled to statutory process thank you note or thank you thank you both will reserve decision at this