good morning and may please the court this case presents a very straightforward and simple question for this court and this court should remand back to the district court with the instruction  the court should apply the criteria for civil commitment based upon anticipated conduct only within the united states and its territories why is it otherwise it seems to me united states interest is to protect the united states community and but i don't think that this case goes beyond that i mean basically we have a man that is been found to fit the criteria and if we were to reverse he would be back out on the street right now right there's no detain or there's no security proceeding there's no criminal proceeding so there's a there's an interest in protecting the community in the united states and that's as far as we need to go and i respectfully judge neymar no that's that's not what would happen in this case in this case first of all judge britt specifically when he invited the appeal i think you very clearly wrote in his order and the fact that he was finding that he met the criteria for commitment because of the fact that if he goes back to mexico and he's not medicated he would present a substantial risk of bodily injury to others in mexico eyes to the people in the united states to i mean i don't think the i don't think the injury caused in other countries is of concern to congress or the or the statute i agree yeah and it is sort of curious that reasoning include anything in mexico but quite apart from that in this case the real world facts are the findings are optimal to the united states community if we issued the order today that he be released he'd be released today or tomorrow morning when i'm not me right out in the community and he'd have that that risk perhaps perhaps the question is and perhaps this is judge you must question does it matter because the findings with respect to mr ramirez elana as are equally applicable to citizens of the united states either because he would be released here or because given his pattern of recidivism he would be back here within a matter of weeks jeff duncan i think it's really important to look at the facts and what happened in this record in its entirety and the record and that is great and would you if you put if you could get to my question to it and i'm sure you will but it does it for purposes of how the district court teated up how the district court analyzed it does it matter if the findings would also apply to was brought to court you had conflicting opinions from the mental health experts dr to breezy said he will not present a substantial risk if he is turned over at the time of course there was a detainer against him and he is i recall a major mitigating factor is that he would not be released prior to deportation yes and i think that's still the correct you are now i'm not asking this court to order to reverse and order him to be freed that's not what i'm asking the court to do i'm asking the court to simply remand and point out and answer the question the judge britt has been really struggling with for decades and that is judge brad initially presented him with a question of diverging expert opinions somewhat rare in these cases that we've experienced a lot of times the experts agree and it's very simple when you are in for that you you are relying on doctor concluded that he did not meet the criteria for it was that he is really his release back to arizona for deportation would not create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another in the united states that's that was the basis of their if if i was no that's exactly that's exactly correct is for the divergent in the expert testimony as to the ultimate opinion as that order require him to be removed any time found in the united states when they found him again fourteen miles from the border that order kicked in and he was subject to removal now he they could have removed him then but of course the united states has the right to go forward with the criminal case and they did that and they went for with the criminal case but it was determined that he was incompetent to go forward with the case at that time the arizona united states attorney's office said once you're finished with the evaluation if you cannot be restored send him back so we can deport him if he still gets back and he's not staying here that's correct and that's why he subject your honor i believe he's still subject to the original removal order but i also would ask the court to consider that a party to litigation should not be able to manipulate the end result of the case source by simply trying to give meaning to the court's holding that in other words we don't speculate as to what the future events are if we have a zone of interest that's been protected which are united states community we don't need to read the statute is governing damage or injury to  that doesn't change a thing though in other words it's just his reason and the fact is he still stays committed until he's deported or until he's better well i respectfully suggest your honor that if you if you go back to judge bre and the lower court and you say it doesn't matter you don't need to do that you don't need to reach that question you simply decide if he meets a criteria for commitment the judge britt the way he articulated his order and the way he invited the appeal would say based upon the facts of this case that this person who spent five years in oregon without causing any problems even though he was schizophrenia at that time that once he arrived it clearly deteriorated and dr does  states exactly but now that he's not a risk he suffers from a lifelong illness of schizophrenia is the first part of the first part of it and and that's and the second aspect of it is as a result of that does would his release unconditional release create this risk and looted that it would create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another regardless of their citizenship or geographic location that's up above and he just goes down below and says i read this is meaning anywhere and so when you find it makes is holding he doesn't put the geography of the ship he just says would create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person or serious damage to property of another now the question is that's not challenged the only thing that's a challenge is the possible inference is that the only persons out would be subject to injury or those in mexico but that ain't so make any difference what your argument if we say the statute poses a risk of personal injury property in the united states then the my point there your honor is that's what i'm asking you to do and if and if you do and if you do that your honor i'm suggesting that if you if you read the reading the record as a whole in reading judge brit's requests for further briefing and reading his order that judge brinn did in effect he made out of he may not is that if if if if you've said what you just said to me to judge britt it's my reading of everything that happened below is a judgment would say well then i need to look at it again because he made his decision because he believed that congress required him to make that with respect to him ever being a danger to anyone anywhere and that's not what the statute or to anyone anywhere that includes the united states  unconditionally released in the united states we just don't know that what we know is that we have an interest because he's in the united states and if we issued an order today releasing them he would be on the streets of the united states there is no detain or there is no warrant there is no home and proceeding there is no criminal proceeding opened today so right now whether responded is released in the united states or in his native mexico his basically consider a couple of inferences number one i asked the court to consider that the executive branch will fulfill its obligations to carry out the law the congress does well i'm just asking the lord for that presumption in the united order today releasing him because he was illegally detained under this statute forty two whatever it is forty to forty sixty if we issued an order butner would have to release him immediately they could not detain him and he would have a right to habeas corpus immediately and so they would release him the sack to noon or tomorrow morning i'm not a there is nobody they would have to release him to at this point there is no order pending there's no proceeding pending against and there's no criminal proceeding there's no detain or your honor i'm not asking you to issue an order no but that's the or have to be released i'm asking you to issue an order for remand so that the court can apply well perhaps my briefing was in artful your honor but we we do we challenge the entire commitment and i believe that the way judge brinn articulated the hearings in both hearings advice of your challenges based on determined that the respondent is released in the united states that would pose a risk of dangerousness that's you haven't said if i missed it you can tell us where it is in your brief where have you said that part of the founding was there judge i did not expressly state that that part of the funding was there because it's our part because it's our it's our position that he is not going to be unconditionally released within the united states that the trial court would not obey simply no basis well the only thing i can suggest rahner is perhaps i have a better trust of the executive branch carrying out the law trust if i'm going up i six of us are going up the highway seventy five miles an hour speed limit sixty five doesn't mean all of us are going to be stopped even really should stop us all know that's how it is this guy's got a higher priority so we guess there's a greater chance but the point is that at this point the way things stand he is a risk to people in the united states if released and that's what the judge found and that's not challenged your challenge is to the consideration of risks to people in mexico but we can go with you on that say hypothetically we can go with you and exclude that as a consideration but he still stuck with the risk of the people the united states and the question is so we send it back and the believe that based on the totality of how it went if you were a man judge brit will decide does he poses for the danger i also suggest that the executive branch can issue a detainer just like that they remove the earlier detain or because he's committed so there's no don't understand your question well your honor that's a factor that judge brit can decide if in fact this court and i do ask you please do issue the opinion defining the statutes that it is not without geographic limitation and if judge brinn at that time wants to hear evidence or if he wants to simply issue an order saying no i think he's a danger right now then then turn it over simply to try to do a challenge hearing and show that he no longer presents a danger to people in the united states at a later again simply by saying that i think that in the totality of the record and the way you judge brit specifically presented it for further briefing and the way he defined the way the issue before him on the second time around everybody got wrapped up on what is person mean and so you know i wish i had cited the should be case the of which i'm sure you're familiar your honor and if i had cited to that i believe judge brinn would have exclusively there's no risk to the united states but there is in mexico it's a different story as well i'm simply asking this court to expressly find the judge brinn erred in he is unconditionally released within the united states because i that's the ruling that i think is going to not only solve this case but also help others again your honor i  respectfully i know what it says i simply suggest that i believe the reason why judge brinn wanted this case to come forward the reason he asked me and enjoined me to do it is he wants an answer to the legal question and so i am simply currently yes now you're on your honor we have people committed in released three ways generally people get released and from these commitments first to the attorney general well sometimes the attorney general simply issuing a letter saying he's improved let him go and a motion for discharge that's not you know he never gets improved from the schizophrenia perhaps his conduct will no longer present that danger  o i don't think that that's going to happen because of the schizophrenia i mean the best it sounds like you can do is he gets released and they get support yes or that's the ultimate best answer court could simply say we found at least one ground for which we want to affirm and you could do that and that's going to leave open this question and one does have to articulate this better and bring it back again to help judge brant to ultimately because well what i'm saying i'm going back to the district court's opinion which i read exactly as you do because the bulk of the opinion focuses on the district court's conclusion that and in fact the underlying rationale for reaching the issue at all is that he thought he was going to be deported and whether or not when he was deported removed that he would be a danger they are and that that was the impetus for the the that the current administration's policy as evidenced in the record i believe around pages seventy nine if i remember correctly secretary janet johnson said he's the priority one he good morning hours may it please the court my name is robert dotson and i represent the united states happily in this case as has already been discussed although the issue here has been framed as whether or not forty two forty six applies when you're talking about at risk persons one carried outside the released to the united states or to his native mexico he would pose a risk of danger to people to people so obviously whether he's really seen yet applied to dangers to mexico or argentina i mean to put it bluntly we don't care i mean we're regulating the conduct of people in the united states and he's a risk in the united states and we've committed them and there's no challenge to the reasons for his commitment the only issue is do you need to issue such an order when he's going to be deported to mexico right away and the two problems with that one is the assumption he's going to be committed  to immediately to mexico i mean this could be an interim where he's still on the streets and the second is the judge probably assumed that i can even consider the risk of injury to mexicans and i can't see how a statute could be read that way but maybe my colleagues can but it seems to me if we were able to commit people who posed a risk to people in other countries we just go around picking people up around the world to a crazy well you raised a couple of points earlier and in in your question just then and i want to start talking about this detainer issue because there's just as you pointed out earlier the record is clear that there is no detain or there are no proceedings the department of homeland or we told you that we had against you is no longer there so your point earlier the bureau of prisons if this court reverses the commitment mr allen is the bureau of prisons will release mr allen is to the street there is no more proceedings and so therefore he'll be a danger to the people united states however even us making an assumption that the ice folks will lodge attain against mister he has shown a pattern of inability to enter this country illegally and easily and the last time he was deported he reentered amir days after being deported the first time so even if he's deported even if this court makes you know that leap that you know as as as mr mout counsel you know that the executive branch will fulfill its obligations you know it's not that ice is refusing or ignoring the law and i want to clarify that the detainer as i understand it was not cancelled because of this commitment it's canceled because mr mears allen is as a mentally ill person and the memo that the secretary of the department of homeland security issue that responded scouser keeps referring to if you read further in memo it's specifically directs field officers not to expand the d h s s resources in trying to deport mentally ill individuals that's the current state of immigration in this country today and we can't solve that problem here but the fact is the statute have an operative fact yes the answer is it does have an op yes the judge found he's a risk to the people in the united states and yes i completely agree with you just name are mean that the record is clear and as we look at the record now there is no question that he will be released to the united states in the clear and convincing evidence that judge brinn found and even if you didn't express the state it it's in the record that both the independent examiner and the government's expert agreed that if he was released to the united states he would pose a risk of danger to people and property in the united states the rec f forty to forty six we we believe that the government believes that the statute when applied to considering a person is a person whether that person is located at the issues the issue that's not entry who's been injured the person the at risk person if you will and you know without getting too bogged down in that issue because again we the government believes you don't even need to reach that question i'm no judge brinn that's not the issue the issue is the risk or injury person who stole into here if he's if he's not competent he's a risky people united states you pick him up right but the issue the big issue is the extra tort territorially application of consideration of damage to injury to property in mexico or people in mexico and you guys argue that your honor i'm more than happy to discuss this with you and i but i just want to add a policy position of the government it is that it is the position that forty to forty six applies to person the person the at risk person wherever they're located and you know the court but again i just want to make clear that we can discuss that issue if you like and i'm happy to have that dialogue but as applied to this case to know what your position is correct in your position is very strange i've never seen it argued that way never seen a statute applied that way and i can't figure out what the united states interest is in protecting the property and persons in mexico well as you pointed out earlier just name are is the global community in the united states is worried about we're not worried about the conditions of whether people call it prompted an individual causes injury or damage to property in other countries doing well here's one example and you know at the risk of getting into hypotheticals we did cite a hypothetical in our brief that you have a person who is in custody saying he's incompetent to stand trial his schizophrenia can normally what we see with these patients is that they are certain theme to their delusions or to their paranoia and we have a person who all their schizophrenia paranoid delusions center around things in foreign countries and people in foreign countries and there's risk of danger to people in this country well here your position is that the clear and plain language of forty to forty six doesn't create a requirement that the person risk the united states citizen or amended to remove the limitation in the united states so you did had that was your argument yes there is and you've presented both a textual and legislative history basis for that are yes whether interests of the united states that's to me it's broader it applies to private people in the united states to that's true and you know they removed it in order to protect all of society in the united states but that doesn't talk about let me go outside that's not removed that that cause you're talking about other interests of the united states we we believe in argue that that is that does go to the geographic interest of the united states includes persons who are located in the united states it doesn't and interests of the united states could be construed as united states property and united states persons well the call says property officers property or other interest of the united states or reading it all together interest of the united states though of the united say in uses of which is a possessive charge right longing to the united states and when they remove that they make a broader but it doesn't say that the statute goes in mexico and applies to property there i i don't know whether that's a prove justice department interpretation very very surprised well but again you know that it's in a very important question and issue to answer it just doesn't need to be answered in this case because you know as as has been stated before there was a very clear finding by judge brinn that  case was presented at the district court it kind of came up the issue kind of came up that the the government all along believe that mister posed a risk of danger to people in the united states we took a position in the district court and we're maintaining that position but the issue really was framed not by the government we didn't file a certificate of dangerousness or mr miller's alys because we thought it was a danger to people of mexico we thought it was a danger to people of the united states and that's why we file the certificate moving forward the issue kind of came up what was necessary to decide yes or no and the issue there was two issues that you can relate to one is who can be picked up and it says person then you made a big argument well it doesn't refer to united states citizens or reverse this that doesn't have anything to do with persons or person and but that's not geographical right citizen and geographic location are two different things and they struck the persons being of the risk the object of the risk is where you really introduce a lot of argument here is just the u s attorney's office obviously with butler you're probably going to have more of these types of cases that a lot of other people but if it's just the u s attorney that forty to forty six does cover juveniles so that this question is not been answered at all across the circuits and that's the closest we could find that that a circuit answered sometimes somewhat of an analogy the definition of person is a totally distinct issue to the extra chair or tory ality yes it's not even related to the person is who you pick up with you pick up a juvenile way you pick up a citizen an alien a person who's here illegally you want an advisory opinion no your honor i want the same thing judge brit's wants judge brett on page one page fifty three of the record judge britt said civil commitment is going to result in virtually a life sentence for aliens in the united states without permission and and then he urged appeal on page one hundred two of the joint appendix and the reason is very very good and i think i'd like to respond a bit to question raised by judge a g at the very end we do have most of these cases your honor i represent one hundred seventy nine of these civil committees forty five of them are on conditional release as of monday and the reason we have so many is that forty two forty six contemplates the hearing to take place at the location where a person is determined now that this decision has to be made the lion's share of them are button because that's where they're doing the studies they're occasionally there are some done in devon's and smith springfield missouri rochester but we have the line share and it falls on judge bret who for many years has been the judge who hears all of these cases and i think the judge bret relied on counsel when he said i'd like you to give me more briefing on this i want to know the issue does this is this post to be all over  is in the united states without authority they should be protected as well in the united states but the point only point i want to make before the court is that it's it's really crucial judge britt and i both want the answer to this and it's going to come up again and again and we need this court to simply state that congress did not intend for every person who finds themself an illegal and alien who's here without just all kinds of things that preclude the notion there's a lifetime sentence well those are just words your honor i don't think so because again the three methods your honor the u s attorney can say a person has used have a disease they don't have it anymore let him go or they could say that they are managed now in such a way that they no longer present that danger that's not going to apply to mr allen is because of the schizophrenia the second network with that price that's the second way a person gets out you know what they call conditional release they are not released they're released on conditions with the regimen of care that sure is the judge that if this person follows this they won't cause a problem the problem  people like mr allen he says is he doesn't get benefits so he can't afford the medication he won't get so security benefits so he won't be able to live in a group home like the rest of my clients who are on conditional release do and the third math the only third method is that his contemplated early in the statute is that they're turned over to the state and the state as we know is defined to include the united states and the district of columbia so he's not he's not going to be released under any of three typical methods the only way he's going to be released and certainly the government could just as you said speculating the government could say we want to do is shoot for deportation and we're filing a motion with the court and asking him to discharge that commitment and judge brit priority for deportation we do know that he is under an existing removal order which says that if you're found in the united states you are subject to immediate removal we do know that he said he wants to go back and he will not fight it he doesn't want to return to the united