particular proceeding the courts found that he had received the notice and moreover the court said you know if he failed to exercise his right to request that claimed that he had not been provided effective assistance of counsel and we said in area law that that due process claim which is what it was he had to have a form within which to raise that claim and we said that he couldn't do it in the reinstatement process because the statute for close that possible but we said he had to have a right to bring that claim someplace else by well i think what they meant was there at least somebody would have an opportunity to bring actually be a  had a right to raise that claim for him but have a form within which you could raise that challenge to the original removal proceeding right for the only place you could do that which strips jurisdiction of the district court p b s and converts it to a petition for review and circuit court doesn't have the jurisdiction of the ability to hear a fact based the opinion one could read more out than simply saying that that the reinstatement process there's no due process violation to preclude a petitioner from raising a  challenge to the underlying deportation or removal proceedings that is that they that the reinstatement process does not violate due process have to provide a petition with an opportunity to challenge the prior proceeding but it seems to go on a bit further to say that that a petition is not having the process right to challenge executive branch where no other form is available to one we're not asking to review have the court to second guess the proceedings before  and that in light of more out the holding and more hours that aliens who are removed from the united states and who we honor without inspection of couse even permission from the attorney general to reenter the united states do not have a right to notice and an opportunity to be heard in my hearing in the morales case it was i never received notice of the hearing that was a due process violation and in this case it was while i received notice i didn't understand completely understand the notice in the case plow motion reopen or motion reconsider on the regulations to the immigration judge in this case you could go to the immigration judge now you only had five or six days here judge he didn't have a lot of time to do that but in fact he could have done it and if you look at the administrative record the the other the other argument we have besides morales is that there is not a proper due process claim being made in this case because there is absolutely no prejudice to be opportunity to not raise asylum put to raise a claim of persecution in the reinstatement proceeding the regulations allow for that and he's eligible for withholding removal and for protection on the convention against torture so he never made it not only in his original proceeding which he a particularly egregious case you can present that and hope for a waiver to come back in the united states but this particular individual has no basis to remain in the united states even if you use the court would take jurisdiction and rule that he has that there was a due process violation he's outside the country right now he's never had a valid visa to enter the country he's never had a valid status he never presented himself or inspection records clear on that therefore how does he enter the country even  no right to maintain it and now aren't there collateral consequences here in the removal in this case there are no collateral consequences in there because he still can go to the border present himself gone because he did he did enter unlawfully again after he was after he was removed under an order removal and congress has determined that that does away with the possibility of foreign but they have not taken away the ability to make a claim of persecution  united states and he wanted to be voluntarily removed from the united states and since he'd already been voluntarily move that was no longer an option so next best thing was was for him to waive this hearing and to get immediately removed from the united states and that's what he chose to do the question on the merits of whether he absolutely understood that it's some point in the process he has a due diligence issue if he doesn't understand what's being said to him to say he doesn't understand he does not claim that he's totally ignorant of spanish he claims that he speaks spanish in this case he was he was told in spanish of what the charges were against him and he was able to communicate with the removal officers as to how he entered the united states not he wanted to be returned to mexico as soon as possible more than likely to get out of custody which would be a valid reason for that so based on that the court's holding him or alephs the government's position is that there is no right to raise the due process claim here there's no suspension clause issue  syrian scheduled he was in fact out of the country and you think there's a good point for point to point was that according to what you said in your opening argument right that he was granted certain rights to be able to come back in the then he's able to demonstrate certain things and that seemed to be something we wanted to look at counsel has made the assertion to us as an officer of the court there is such a stipulation so we wanted to review it i think that's the point well he was granted parole no imminent limit sorry the question is we want to read it not have someone talk to us about it we're the point now we'd like to read it and i take it what you're telling us says you don't know where it is i can't tell you right now i don't know where he was the procedure was he would be granted parole to reenter the country