government only grants parole if there was a humanitarian need or other public but their parole rights were not respected they were the teams they were separated from their phone for and when some of them tried to complain their parole papers were snatched out of their hands on a upon written notice so our clients sued and they argue that the federal government to all of its own regulations it also they have to get them processed they were entitled to under the laws the district court acknowledged this but it did not reach the take away parole it's not doing something for bad reasons and it also creates a record that somebody who were both parole actually had authority to revoke roll it we actually don't have a record of either of those things in this case and it's not i'm not saying that this court has right vehicle for this it's you know after the supreme court's opinion just a justice alito instructs says it responded did not think an order releasing him on the condition that he do refrain from executive to justify or hear a defect in the detention you in essence are seeking us to have a defect in the detention prior detention cured and that's exactly what the supreme court has recently told us this limited to under the law but at least for the last fifty years or sixty years or so the supreme court has also recognized as does the government in this case mind that you can use that p b s to some of collateral consequences at the supreme court has also helped for quite some time that the inability to work in ability to hold a lot will employment even in limited forms of them when it is itself a collateral consequence of this and i think that's a very important point here because our clients are not allowed to have any form of live in live and then gets put in prison and now is now that's a different person i'm not saying they're not entitled to certain rise in all that or not people are just to that i'm simply saying those are very different ha you with cases where people were not allowed to see any type of work whatsoever it was about particular cases where a person could not seek a particular post in a labor union and i don't think that there would necessarily be the same argument that u s citizens w degree to which this collateral consequences world applies here and what that means now let's take it one step further you keep talking about the right to work ok the problem as i see it is this for all it's not a right to work it's a it and i just want to go why the local grocery store for a job i don't need the permission of the united states government to do that i just go blah but your client had they still been under or all would have had to go and get a license to apply to the grocery store then the grocery store could join them down sure but they can't go to the grocery store and apply without that so talk to me about why that is a right the right to apply for the right to apply is not the same thing as just the right to apply well i think that's hands with respect to points what is there are certain types of employment where you need a license to hold the thought anyway and you need a license from the government and you need to go through various arms to get it and i think those would still be covered by the collateral consequences doctor at the very least the government has not given us reason to disbelieve the nd thing i would say that is just again even if this court things that are used claim is on your ground we do have other case where that happened so i could study that as i'm asking you where is that case what is that case what case do you want me to read that would show mandamus is available in this context not actually you win or lose on me and  is similar enough that it would satisfy the feeling that this isn't the right case for this to apply here what's your best case on that of course the i think a response is the versus nelson wasn't a create case but again i some sort of mandamus relief when it arder that so the court thought it granted mandamus in some fashion by request making them give a written notice i don't know that you can make somebody very kate a prior order is part of mandam saying there is no jurisdiction just a course but it's highly limited of course and so if i'm looking for a case that is relevant that would help me understand the parameters of any jurisdiction  bit the hey b s that the language that we didn't even get to that specifically talks about collateral consequences and says that you don't have the right to try to be a doctor or in and it can only be in one or apply architect or a pilot and that you may have the opportunity to remain in the country there is no evidence that it was known in seven hundred and eighty nine could be used to require the supreme court decision from just about a month ago addresses his relief and create and define the scope as saying it's meant to secure one's release from unlawful detention tissues have already received relief and therefore the such as a surgeon being released or site such as an individual who is not a surgeon to be released and then seek to perform surgery to the extent that petitioners argue that there are that they're entitled to work discretion to revoke your parole we're talking about the procedure to get there ok and so my question on that is does does it have that the jurisdiction of the district court whether that challenge is based on a regulation or based on a statute doesn't demonstrate statute in regulation matter because of this in the cases i've looked at his in congress mandated this congress mandated that which is not true in the context of regulation  it's you can have these regulations but it's a little bit different so does that make a difference to the analysis or not it is not your honor and if i may just quote this court's decision in lower herrera it said the court said that the discretionary judgment regarding  the application of including the manner in which the discretionary judgment is exercised and whether the procedural apparatus applied satisfies regulatory stacia torrie in constitutional constructions my problem that there has been cases since then that arguably detracted from it but those cases seem to be focusing on statutes so my asking since this case focuses on a regulation due to those cases have any bearing on the lower question here lower horary question here any other words if the government failed to follow its own regulations but did follow all the statues does that is that different from if violating its regulations the issue was about the government not providing notice again petitioners have received got notice the district court ordered the government to provide notice and that notice was filed on a in correctly i was trying to figure out what ground or parole they would have satisfied to have gotten her role instantly in that circumstance anyway and so i'm not really sure what what ground was the parole based upon initially and the fact that it was instantaneously revoked and not ever they were never led out they were just transferred to a different facilities since to say that there's some kind of error at the time the initial parole transferred why weren't they been paroled and why were they just being moved to a different facility was that an error of the government administratively it your honor it's not very clear from the record as to why and why they were why those not exactly developed for the district court on this issue it is difficult to say what exactly happened ok and what is the current immigration no this is not one of the cases that we get from the b i as to change pointed out earlier but  you'd like i'm happy to tell the court where things stand current what that's not in the record at all what their current immigration status is and no it's not in there it's not in the record because again this was a hideous situation by which that and this is why i'm questioning regulation versus sadly it lou says back to the question did they follow the proper procedures they didn't violate any stats to do what they did but they deeply and clearly did violate some regulations so then what effect does that have on the jury let's assume argue and they violated the notice and the hearing regulations that authority that the government had to detain individuals so if the glee ends i mean the question was whether or not the government could detain individuals with a final order removal after their removal may not be reasonably foreseeable  question into more was whether or not the government could actually detain somebody through military detention or the six see question in jennings was whether or not a bond hearing is required after six months for your for individuals that are subject to man pre op the question was whether or not the government must detain an individual upon release from criminal custody for them to be subject to some other cases in a different context to discuss that there's no due process rights if there's not a procedural due process right to get something that's discretionary so it's certainly not constitutional but we it's not statutory here so that you don't so failure to follow your process doesn't give you any rights to get relief before this court in the immigration context and other context in removal and another context it's that precedent relevant to this to this discussion or is because it's in a removal context not relevant it may be wrong but your honor the thing is you know questions of removal are done are reviewed in a completely different story completely different statutory scheme them do the process correctly if you don't that doesn't give you any substantive right in a court it doesn't have to it doesn't give the substantive right to the benefit but the procedure right now only if there is any remedy the only remedy bit well your honor the idea of whether or not individuals may seek employment it is not proper for hay vs review and you know to the extent that there are certain cases judge james you know did talk about this during mr l it's kind of messing up right now that will take about we'll have an opportunity to ask his question as soon as his thinking audios worker but i think maybe he's asking why don't we just resolve it that there to circumvent i succeed but it but before we even get there it would have to the court would have to say that the decision to revoke parole is reviewable because employment is connected with the government's decision to about anyone else is having these issues we're having these he's ok he said he thinks it's simpler than what we're being discussed and after that cut out because what he's saying is that the collateral consequences for this discretionary and other words in order is so let's say we gave relief the parole would only give them the right to ask for the right to see the job and that itself would be discretionary so what i don't know if i'm summarizing here and i understood your honor and i think that that's correct is that what they're seeking is ultimately seeking is a form of discretionary considering the rd case for today thank you