and i think their parties are in agreement that if e f l is presenting a legal challenge that jurisdiction remains and if she's challenging a discretionary decision then there is no jurisdiction e f l is arguing that she is challenging a legal decision and that's supported by this court's case law regarding the sub one exception that she mentions in the br april he was part of the stray hot club some class member and show that she was medically vulnerable to cope and so she is on an order of supervision she does have to report regularly to ice it was never anything that e f l requested that in regards to the automatic work permit though she she did request it hurt her being in custody yes wow essentially her eagle argument is that she is eligible for the files registered a status if her if she is physically removed from the us she is no longer eligible for that statutory relief and so this court has held that's a legal question in the context of it being someone with the removal order who is in because it's a valid order yes your honor we're asking that she be given me a meaningful opportunity to pursue her adjustment of status at which he's in at this point reopen and so it's it's quite different in this circumstance in e f l circumstance where she could not have raised any of these blocks lines in her petition for review because it w still only raise withholding only so she could only raise her fear of returning to her home country and so it was very those that distinguishes her case from tas you know and in addition t they do you have to go to a u s consulate abroad and apply for an immigrant visa fraud so that is the that's very different from an adjustment of status application where  know by definition you have to be present in the u s to apply for adjustment of status which is again where this legal versus discretionary economy comes into play because if she's the violence against women act that she had a legal right to delay and execute the removal my question is when do you point and she is denied that relief then there's nothing else there's no legal rights released preventing her from being removed so but then but on the under that theory if a e we get that in statute i'm sorry your honor where do we get that conclusion from statute well she is eligible for in just minutes status so there are some people who have that final order of removal who aren't eligible for adjustment of status if they're not eligible for adjustment of status then there is nothing preventing mat removal order from being executed but if need with new allegations of abuse or eligibility for relief under that statute why would we not expect vast numbers of right but it's the crime they should binding i would say yes in that it it shouldn't be abuse it shouldn't be a frivolous application filed just to prevent removal there should be some way that it has to be a bona fide and legitimate claims and also your honor you know in order to be in order to qualify for a law you have to show good moral character which was in the past three years is because someone has made a crime of station showing as a policy of petitioner they're entitled to other types of benefits so they're in entitled to certain benefits that other undocumented immigrants are not eligible for so for instance yes i know she qualify for certain medical assistance that normally wouldn't be available to undocumented immigrants so the pr order it is the decision was filed just days after this court dismissed two consolidated petitions for review and the petition did not seek a simple released from custody but rather sought the court's intervention into d h s s decision to move it's important to step back and look at the timeline here this individual sister had a real were reinstated in march of two thousand and eighteen she did raise that claim a fear of returning to her home country and was given the opportunity to raise that claim before the immigration judge and it was unsuccessful she was represented by counsel when she brought that claim she then appealed the denial of her withholding and kept claim to the board of immigration appeals which upheld the judge decision and then as the court knows brought in for a review of that decision before this court it was only before that petition for review was before this court that petitioner filed this i three hundred and sixty violence against women act in august of two thousand that was approximately a year and a half after she was already facing that reinstated order of will the reason i want to highlight that is that petitioner states she could not have brought this clean previously and that's true i asked and it is not at all uncommon for an individual in immigration proceedings to file of isa petition and more commonly the island thirty just for alien relative which is the analog for the i three dollars self petition and so it's not at all unusual and there is nothing legally that precluded petitioner from doing that and she could have requested an extension or a continuance of her hearings from the immigration judge until such time as that country this is make a difference if the circumstances of the one of you help me out here but of the circumstances that led to the reinstate of the had she not had that order reinstated in march of two thousand and eighteen it would be relevant in the lead provider for a basis to pursue a waiver sinners suspension cause arguments and her argument that the jurisdiction stripping for provisions of twenty two g violate the suspension clause as applied to her case was forfeited below and the argument was not developed it developed an a government understands the statute that means relief from removal from united states that's my understanding and however once she's outside of the united states that reinstated it that order has already been reinstated she is now outside of the united argued that she is eligible because the amendments made to it in two thousand and five under section eight hundred and thirteen b and under that amendment to congress made that she is and twelve dollars that state that she can that these sorts of waivers are available when filed can just concurrently with the adjustment of status application and just for the timing of her having brought up the law in her part of her petition for review was that her prior counsel was ineffective and the the prior attorney who represented her for the immigration judge and for the board and authorization is affirmative relief so again her situation is different from other people because of her status as an abused immigrant vows and qualification