injunction entered by the district court finding that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of an argument that there is a statutory right to counsel that applies in immigration proceedings more specifically here to not follow in interviews that seems inconsistent or view that somehow congress had issued a blanket exemption of all the people of all immigration proceedings according to you from the requirements of the well what the supreme court said is it looked at the that how congress it decided to adapt provisions that looked very much like the provisions of the a p a for some aspects of your aims and made specific choices to not apply e p a like procedures in other places and so the i a e a as a whole based on that reasoning should be read read with the understanding congress made particular determinations to include a right to counsel and some provisions but not in others and when i determined not to include a right to counsel in particular statutory provisions that should be regarded as intentional to do otherwise would sit with to apply the a p a broadly in any circumstance in which a particular why it's duplicative that there's no need to say that and similarly congress has made other specific choices of in the statute about when and to what extent counsel should be provided so there's a particular type of expedited removal proceedings under burst in exactly the way that it should because what we require is not simply that well you know perhaps congress wanted to extra sure that counsel would widen rather what we need is some statement by congress that we've made a deliberate decision to exclude of the right to counsel in a particular proceeding and we just simply don't have that in the visual either but i don't know if that's right your honor so again going back to marcello the court said that it was looking for some sort of contrary intent by congress to say it did while i now know that the supreme court has more recently affirmed and brought back holding in marcello and the artist johnny case and said we're dealing with the exact same provision that was it was an issue in marcellus so obviously you've already determined you the speaker of or you determine the that this narrow type of proceeding is you know governed by the aren so based on those two terminations and an and marcello's clear statement that a statute may not include any particular type of magical words to exclude gays vision congress has been now and acting statutes  even before marcel out for sixty five years under the background assumption they need not include any particular expressed provision lead counsel or any other well i mean it's really the congress doesn't need to say the a p a shall not the congress elected not to extend by statute the right to counsel to to during the actual interview itself which is what plaintiffs are seeking in this case so and this court's cases in the cases of other courts have held so my question is can you point me to any place in the eye and where a person in that situation facing you know that risk is not allowed to consult with counsel prior to an interview we can't count them right to consult with retained counsel for the to r brief on page five you mentioned that i think that i think you take the position that the statutory scheme gives the immigration officer the discretion to decide whether to follow someone through be won or be to do either one of those shoots and my my question is where does if they are if individuals fall in those those categories immigration officers or otherwise have special and put them into proceedings under the wire or under the return of the provision under b two c they're also  government's view is that that is not exclusive that the categories of interviews also fall under the one provision that they would those are limits on the individuals who can be subject to the expedited removal provision but those are all all of those those categories that fall under the w are there are stacked there are cases holding that that immigration officers also have discretion for an individual that might be subject to expedite removal under under the winds also plays that need to fall  that the purpose of both of them is the same is that not i and i fully appreciate that enderby one congress is more specific than under the two which is one of the problems they've got because this is this is being in a you use now and again different way but i'm i'm asking about the purpose of the interview if you know what happens in the interview apart from access to counsel preparing for a credible fear interview is there any difference functionally there are they are similar in a lot of ways obviously for individuals under the return provision that provision is designed not to determine whether an individual has a few year of being returned to the country they came from or that they might be removed to it's to a rd country mexico where their it's intended that they will only be presence at this interview can be considered anything other than compulsory if this is the only way in which the alien seek relief from what would otherwise be the removal step in a long process for these individuals and it's something that they can revisit over and over again so they can have this interview aside office can find it they don't have a fear returning to mexico they can be turned they can raise it over and over again  a step on the way so i think that the part of it would be some part of a final agency order that has particular final legal consequences for an individual and again this is again not part of some later therefore we have to recognize displaced i'm focused on the nd issue let's assume you're right that the a p a hasn't been displaced but now we're trying to figure out whether in fact the a p provision provides a right to counsel as i understand your argument is that anytime somebody has the team if they are then seeking some kind of a discretionary benefit from the government they are compelled to appear in whatever proceeding is going to be had to determine whether they get that then not to strictly as an odd reading of the wo context the government is not compelling them to appear in any sense of the word that we traditionally think of either you've been subpoenaed or you've been served with or some of the some kind of enforcement action they are seeking a benefit that the to go down a particular adjudicatory and so what i understand you to say is that well if they weren't in detention then yeah i guess you could really say they were compelled because they're electing to see this benefit but you say well because they're  is helpful or not but could we recast it in terms of the benefit that is of taking by having the interview as the government's obligation i determine whether the alien will more likely than not well has to be sure that the alien is not born to be at a more likely than not risk of torture or persecution if detained in mexico and so it's people to the returns and so at that point it has it has all of these things together sort of with in a situation where the government forces class farmers into a condition where one they fear are compelled to appear when we take all of these boxes to gather what is your best case for them weeks for hearings out which they have the opportunity to declare here and surrender themselves to not responding or you know when people fear persecution and torture the fact of weeks to months between the opportunities to declare fear friends but rather they determine where somebody will reside during removal proceedings so while those questions are ultimately you judy so the provisions kind of how to find the right to counsel in removal proceedings in the i only let me just maybe be a little bit more specific in my question the government of course argues that marcello in arms danny actually did announce that it's broad holding that essentially all immigration proceedings  us the government in reading our artist on in particular as having this much more sweeping holding if that were true i think we would perhaps be bound by could steal notwithstanding how we might read those two earlier supreme court cases song i guess that was my question must look at it statute by statute and the buildings and in these cases show us that is only by looking at his actual bisection close reading of the statutes that we can determine whether congress intended to either