you didn't sign a stipulation with the other parties agreeing to the stated you and submitted to the court this is your motion and your motion and the mass your most are going to rise or fall on what you submitted the government says we're going to stay out of objection to the petitioners request first day that doesn't mean the government's consenting it probably means the government's up is you don't have time to cover all of these who were physically present in the united states and had made an entry whether by inspection or by the meaning expect inspection and the second type of proceedings for exclusion proceedings and those were for individuals who were apprehended before they enter the united states in essence they were knocking at the at the door of the border and before they were able to come in and they were stopped by the immigration service and placed in exclusion proceedings and this is the type  it discretion to parole somebody into the united states which enabled them to remain inside of the united states that haven't formally entered it's a legal fiction that exists and it's an administrative advice that exists so that the argument that's fine if the service wants to do it that way but at some point the service stumbles and forgot to give him an extension and therefore his argument is that the parole by its own rather the statute the regulation in case law seems to indicate that if parole is terminated and expires that the person remains an applicant for admission into the united states and that the would know this but then what's the purpose of giving them these fixed extensions of parole if under the statute what you give them notice that we are placing you in exclusion proceedings and as i understand your that are you just kind of speculating because my understanding of the record was that it was so that if you were stopped by a border patrol officer or an immigration inspector he would have something to present to an official to show what his and it was fundamentally fair and i just wanted to distinguish the case of murphy's versus ins from the present case decided by a petitioner in his reply brief in that case the court found that it was fundamentally unfair to to admit into evidence yet for my two thirteen and the basis for the court's finding was that the immigration and naturalization service  only i do have one suggestion for you because i know you're new at this and i know i know that they frequently ask you to cover other people's cases because you're coming out here to do other arguments but we really do rely on counsel for both sides  thoroughly know the record and it's helpful if you have the administrative record with you so that if you get questions like you did this morning you can respond ok thank you  injunction standard and that's awaiting us and i'm i'm thinking coming on the fence this morning that we're never going to know more about this case and when we get through with your argument and we go back into the conference room to discuss this case we've had an opportunity to review briefs we've listened to your argument we've had an exam and have an examination of the i j a record we have done some in chambers research briefing and at this point i'm let's just case to take some crazy turn someplace down the line with another case in the spring or research or something you've called our attention to late t changes the course of a we're pretty much on course to write an opinion or disposition maybe a memorandum disposition or maybe if i was any i don't know this point but we're we're pretty geared up at this point and i'm saying panel come to some kind of a resolution it seems to me that if the we are to rule in favor of the service then the stay should be left if we were to rule in favor of your client and s and has essentially said that at least for permanent roles cases you can continue to litigate your entitlement to relief even if the alien is removed from the united states whereas as i understand the law in that i really were context or even in transitional roles cases if the alien is removed then he loses the opportunity to continue prosecuting his petition for are you familiar with section twelve fifty two to the statute and the standard that's expressed there was a clear  convincing evidence standard that's that's a pretty heavy burden the very now that's that's one down from the criminal standard that's the french standard yes that would be between the language that congress used and you want me to apply equity after congress direct specific language be applied i don't know stand at liberty to do that