service with immigration counsel for the youth with the immigration court from the first day that my client mentioned that he was a us citizen through reverses and ship until i think with us fifteen sixteen months until he was that i believe the immigration service took the position that legally mr count was incorrect because both his parents had not been naturalized prior to his eighteenth birthday was r v and they just from understanding with one of my associates who did represent the immigration court out myself but this position of the immigration service continued up until november of zero one which is only contrary to law it was also contrary to a routine criminal case where the district judge has issued a judgment and conviction order and that sentence and then o appeal we say that there was insufficient evidence or it was an illegal sentence or any of the many grounds that would terminate the case not just remain there for another trial and saith the person gets after jail right now i should never been in jail it seems like under your theory there'd be a federal court claims act action that would be good in every one of those cases i think a little bit differently a little bit different shade on the shore i'd say garden variety case where you're this court overturns or just record on a criminal conviction and you sense there was i think the immigration court in this case asked for a briefing from the service desk and its reputation from the service analogy and i think it's a little bit straight different than the immigration service provides crucial information if you would analogous to evidence sounds like the only difference is there is more i think it is you're more deferential to the didn't present the most articulate case but you are makes a very cogent point in march overall and my shows did those come into the case fully briefed the position that was actually accepted that he did have my client did have the river assist ship so at that time another march to november or one other project a six month period only when there was a deal to the board of immigration peoples there was also emergency bond hearing i was brought in october november of one date either side i stand with your argument appears to be that the i and its lawyers have a duty to fairly investigate the facts and follow vi in its regulations and  fifteenth two thousand through november two thousand and one however i november fifteenth two thousand appellant was still serving his criminal sentence he did not enter ins custody and full february of two thousand and one and then in september of two thousand and one not november eighth two thousand and one he was released from ins custody so essentially the date that appellant had selected november fifteenth two thousand the date of the id a decision rendering can removable as an aggravated felony and the beyond a decision which is the november eighth two thousand and one date which granted to the parties joint factual arguments of the ins and that if in and they're alleging in february or one of the ins should have or certainly by march realized that it made absolutely incorrect arguments did it not have a duty to go to the i j a and dismiss it as the complaint or could they just sit on their hands and say well too bad but unless he is able to care oh my god we made a mistake he is absolutely right and the supervisors well we're not going to go public with that so too bad so we just say he sits there and then the burden is on him and yet when push comes to shove and he as bet and say you know they did the right thing and joined in a motion to terminate the proceedings however after time and i'm just going to go back a little bit at the time bronner there were several misrepresentation whether the facts coincide entirely i'm not quite sure but is that whatever went on before by march two thousand and one the ins now with all of the facts and the forget the misrepresentations of he made early on now as of march two thousand and one they say ok you are right we agreed with a few should be given derivatives so the search if we now understand the custody arrangements we understand all of that physical legal custody and so forth but they don't do anything about it they just leave him in custody keep him in custody until eventually they react to legal action and taken you refused to address the issue that i'm trying to get you to address grad of the i j s ruling jim he's entitled to judicial immunity and to the extent i think that the i and else is litigating in good faith we knows it has made the air rather than wait six months and i'm assuming it knew it in march let may be a fact dispute but that they knew in march that they had made an erroneous argument and this person should be re of two thousand and one when he was released from custody and then at that point and also your honor he was already in removal proceedings the ins cannot come before the i j a and say hypothetically that they were wrong on day one we're wrong this guy's a us citizen we cannot detain him his boss says don't put it in writing i don't want to hear it at let it live why ability is that ins lawyer a law enforcement officer under they have the exception to the exception in twenty six even is their liability because as a law enforcement officer as well your honor my the government's argument is that in this case the government did the right thing eventually and the fact that it's early on in the process and i  guess we've already talked about the palace misrepresentations and how we got to the point of why there was confusion over whether or not he wasn't said offense but again judicial immunity you know this case goes to the heart of judicial immunity the judge looked at the briefs looked at the statute made an interpretation based on you know you can look at the divorce decree and see that in the divorce decree grants joint legal cu dy and he looked at the statute and said since this divorce decree grant joint legal custody and the statute says that in that case both parents would have had to naturalize by appellants eighteenth birthday therefore he is not and joined in a motion to terminate the proceedings along with the balance attorney and he was released from custody and the fact that they put out its speculative and they could have done it sooner does adam hypothetical questions in order to clarify some issues on this one it looks to me as though while you're right it wasn't so obvious that you can definitely say any ins floors were acting in present evidence or argument to the i j a that would lead to the release of the petitioner or defendant at that federal tort claims liability attaches it seems like we would need the district courts to allow discovery so that you could ask the ins lawyers produce produce all your memos produce all your emails and attorney i'm not that first in those kinds of cases but i do believe there's a right to civil discovery while they're there it's usually police where you get all the discovery not right not the prosecutor right but i do think there now that leads to my next question what