is an order of deportation number two we have the expedited removal order which obviously is an order of deportation which is important because number three the order of terminations the judge ordering to terminate proceedings previous removal order which is the expedited removal order i'll write that there was a dismissal of removal proceedings because the immigration authorities brought to the attention of the i j a that they could reinstate administratively a prior order of removal because he was subject to that prior to removal because he had entered the country after being deported without permission my question and it's a very strict one and you may not be able to answer it and i wouldn't blame you for that is there something in black and white which says color will be remanded to the custody of the immigration authorities and removed from this country is there something that does that your honor in the proceedings in order for the judge to terminate proceedings the government had to file the reinstatement order which specifically states that and where was that we in statement order in the record it's in the record your honor and i can pull it out if you would like to it it is part of the record that is the secret reason why the judge terminated i think one of the big problems we have is that there's a lack of jurisdiction for this court to review under twelve fifty two and a a order which is not a final order of removal now if you have something that you characterize as a final order removal you do me a great favor by pointing me to precisely that point portion of the record so that i can review that writing can you do this or yes i will your honor once i get to well it as there's been no denial of his application for adjustment of status than in this case all we've done is we ended a hearing on a plot he was going to what he was going to do has there any place been a situation where your client has challenged the actual reinstatement of the prior removal order no your honor because as far as i'm concerned there is not much to review when it comes to reinstatement procedures now is the governor ever as the government ever reinstated it the whole purpose why  was to pick them up and remove them immediately your honor and this court your honor in a case called was eerie in that case the court was reviewing a rescission order of l p r status legal permanent resident status in the court said well if one party opposes the judge must then consider the evidence before him and decide in this case because one the primary attorney abandoned the client and send an ill prepared attorney yes your honor i mean that's another grounds for jurisdiction we also have to look at this the briefings are took place in april of two thousand and five two and a half years ago since then the real idea has also been implemented which has expanded   before the immigration judge he was never allowed to present his claims of his adjustment of status application and his waiver because the judge unilaterally terminated proceedings without considering the evidence before  and then they can file a final order and you can proceed after your honor i would not be opposed to any mediation i would not be opposed to further briefing in this case because it's been a while it's been two and a half years in two thousand and one and he sought the waiver and then when it came time for the hearing his lawyer didn't show the lab and so the i j a for whatever reason and really unfairly just said ok is he's given a new a number because he presented a fake i d s order ok so he has a new a number at a time he had previous a number when he came in in one nine hundred eighty eight that was that was one of a number he leaves and two thousand about the new way know they only have the only capable only because the department of justice and department of homeland security aren't talking to each other why should the fact that there's two different files so the two different places operate to preclude under the law to have that waived or even not even allowed him to have a hearing to present why you should give him that waiver are you just stopping him way back at the beginning of the thing a question counsel it's my understanding from what we've heard here that the removal order has not been reinstated it's far as i'm concerned as far as i know yes and has not  jurisdiction over motions to reopen or to reopen regarding cases in which and the fourth that is an independent claims such as ineffective or counsel is at the immigration judge is before the department homeland security now and the reason for doing so is because he was already subject to a final order of removal so he wanted to reinstate him and if he had to apply for mexico that's  you're going through immigration and whilst you apply for your just mistress here i don't know i will sleep better that way i agree i don't know if they'll do that because what we have here is someone who illegally reenter after this case long after this judge had a chance to make this decision i mean this decision was made by this judge before paris gonzalez was even thought of it was on appeal maybe but that was the best we can say and what you're suggesting to me on it and on an abuse of discretion basis that i'm going to say to that judge who made that decision on that day based on the fact that he had a prior removal order that's not even being enforced that he was going to abuse his discretion by not allowing the case to be dismissed when the statute that he faced are very clear on the face of them that the attorney general can stop a perceiving any time they want to and therefore he was going to have in his quiver of arrows the idea that there would be some ninth circuit decision come down two years later that would say based on a totally different situation because the removal or was in the record that he would therefore having filed that application not be entitled to have that case go away now that judge based on those considerations it's an abuse of his discretion that he didn't do it it was an abuse of discretion that he didn't consider the evidence based on the case law a matter of g and c which specifically states that it cannot be terminated as a one sided affair you must consider the evidence before you  better result so they can not follow that is one sided and that's been the case now for the past two years i have cases bet islam silence cases that are been held in abeyance for one to three years now well two years because they're waiting for