our next case is my your go versus attorney general right is correct your honor they are right and while i can't say that exactly why why should we get to that you've conceded that your client is removable on the other grounds correct yes well we have not argued that in this case i don't know whether mr markham might be able to contest that in some future he's not going to be allowed to do that because of the cia empty adjudication and my my answer to that is the cia empty adjudication cannot collaterally a stop your client from trying to come back in because it was not essential to the judgment is that not one of the requisites of collateral stoppel that the adjudication be essential to the judgment my understanding is that the immigration judges determination as a never taken a position on the c i n t in spite of the fact that well we granted a stay in removal we directed that the government take a position and we directed that they brief hourly and told them up and they basically is very good yes thank you but having having congratulated you i'm going to ask you to take his seat and we're going to reserve your time because i think it would be most helpful if we could focus on this issue with mr and castro so you're not going to lose any of ok mr mr de castro are you going to take the position that eleven years from now mr maior guy cannot seek reentry because the cia empty determination collaterally stops him from doing so g and to brief tell them anally and you didn't do it what is the government's position on that well it comes position on that is exactly what we put in our brief you didn't use well it's not necessary you did not take a yes your honor but the government's answer to that is that the boy does not address the cia and t findings there's there's nothing in that the city i j did in the for the i j a did to a certain extent and the board didn't at all because it wasn't raised to that right which is the reason i'm i'm suggesting to you i think you're agreeing that the prudent course here is for us to hold that the cia empty issue is not preclude sieve against mr my order should he want what is your position on whether this crime but if the government would have liked to see the board address this issue what is your what is you want deference to the board's definition of that term under now statute under this statute but has the board said it hasn't said anything on the right it hasn't but as i understand your position correctly from mistaken your position is that the government written large hasn't said much about this because the b a hasn't given the guidance and that that  the lawyers could then come into court and and argue is that there's that's career you find yourself staring down at because we don't have a reason board decision at all to say all right is it had they had they founded a c i t it's possible they may not find the cia given this court decision total and also judges for existing action ali it's very possible that if they looked at had it been raised in front of them which it was not so that we could in theory we have jurisdiction to write an point that never comes up that that's like that's pride on all of that depends upon the government not whipsawing mr majorca eleven years from now and saying aha that question has been asked and answered look at the immigration judge's opinion yes yes i mean it's in effect in atlanta where yes it's an effective removal order and he's ineligible for any relief so we can wait for a case where the only reason someone's going to be removed is because of the cia and t determination then we can write a nice long opinion that analyzes what the says about that because or it could be he isn't eligible for relief because of this finding and then the cleric consequences on the some of your decisions may take effect but here he's he's he just doesn't whatever this court decides on the c  but the to me but but if we were to reach the issue then there would not be a lifetime ban on it misses readmission and we know and and he wouldn't have the clientele that would be needed that's right i mean we could reach that now yes i'm sure it's removeable on the other grounds i don't think anybody's arguing he's not trying to he still would be admissible because he's been removed on the removal order of the to twelve a night so for ten still inadmissible for ten years unless he gets a waiver so that is also you all understand that ok are we all understand that but the collateral consequences that flow from the from being a cia i mean that's when having this open says he's it admissible there is no there is no similar statute like the aggravated felony stammered the u s now in other cases of a lifetime ban here he could be out of the country for for three years and he can see after his ten year period is up he seems to reenter the country explain to us how that litigation will proceed or administrative process will proceed and i want you to assume that this court has specifically said that the i js c i m t determination is of no effect because it's not essential the judgment it has no collateral stop effect whatsoever tell us what would happen eleven year for k it's  difficult to say what would happen eleven years from now based on what we know now but what we know he would first have to get a away that he would have to get away to enter the country so we'd have to file you have to get a visa approved he's a petition and then you would have to get a visa assuming he was able to get all that then you would go to and from the counsel's office wherever he is overseas then counsel look on whether or not he's admissible to united states and if this first he would look if it's beyond ten impair him in any way then it should not it should not impairment anyway i mean these decisions are made by one council officer and one location i don't know the experience level don't know the nature so those are very very very from country to country could it could you're on a so it's hard to say with with any certainty that that would in fact happen as you progress because it's very well that they may even they may look at the cia empty finding it says the boy didn't address it then mr glue so sits here incarcerated for another two years on when we know he's going to be shipped out of the country anyway right that well that's why that's why i posited earlier that doesn't make much sense well not necessary if he's going to be shipped out to be shipped out forthwith as a stay in place around no i know we have but once we make our decision that's when he gets shipped out right well unless you keep the stay in order we can well when we know he's removed all right that's the point so what if we if i they could still address it he could he could he could very well get out of confinement tomorrow we can go back to all salvador we could cut in order saying we don't find this to be an a c i m t and opinion would find as a very a very nice job at the pro bono program at my office and i'm very lucky that he offered me this case oh yeah ok so i want to quickly respond to a couple things that the government mentioned there and their argument you know for the first thing is that i this case i'm i think that the i a s the decision you know relied as much upon this ground of remove ability as the other well it doesn't matter the b i found no reason on any issue to disagree with the empty is your client still being removed yes yes that's why it's not essential still it's entirely ancillary you're now here's here's where it's important and the reason we have a right case for adjudication rather than a moot case is that if we were to hold that this is a c i m t then your client is going to have much more difficulty gaining admittance after the ten year period expires correct that is certainly true you know we can resolve this issue right now in this case or we can wait a lot of years from now when mr america wants to get back in the country again and he's going to have to do this whole proceeding all over again we don't know whether he's going to be able to obtain counsel not proceeding you know what he can even try to do  do that until he gets a visa right we have many contingencies that must occur before he would get admission back into the country correct that's correct but for the purpose of for the purpose of the terminal whether he's injured by what the the additional hassle of trying to litigate that issue eleven years from now why would he have to litigate that that was my last question to mr de castro was he incorrect when he said he would just show up at the cause or office he would apply and ask for a  visa i mean i guess that there was a hypothetical chance that the government eleven years from now you know would say that's not a crime involving moral turpitude but you know we don't know whether the government is going to take that position or not they may they may eleven years from now when he cements his application for admission say you know you know for instance maybe you falsified replication because you haven't listed here that you committed a crime involving moral turpitude and we believe as a matter of law regardless of what happened you know now with the i j a decision th ira and the third circuit that that the facts of the underlying facts constitute a crime involving moral turpitude now if we get to the stage and right now he won't have to go through you know the uncertainty or the trouble of arguing that in the future if the third circuit sides he did not commit a crime involving moral turpitude he said what he will affirmatively not have to write on his application anything about you know you know you know a potential crime involving moral turpitude so you're saying we should send we should either decide that issue or failing that we should send it back to send it to the board with directions that it decide that issue and return the case to us you know i'm saying that the court should decide it now and i think that either everyone should to be i a what or waiting into round that's definitely true yes i mean there are clearly additional hurdles put in place by the cia empty determination if it's left to stand in addition to the hurdles that he would face if he is just removed from the non criminal grounds  so if we write an opinion adjudicating the cia and t issue or if we remained it to the board to do so is there any reason for us not to lift the stay t issue well you know why shouldn't he be removed forthwith rather than during the pendency of a tangential issue that's not essential to the removal order my understanding is that my client is still pursuing other avenues of  relief at this moment and he's trying to exhaust them you know you know he really doesn't want to which are what country well i believe that he is he has been trying to reopen his case before the board of immigration appeals on the separate issues of asylum  removal perhaps i've not been involved in that aspect of his case but but but he's still looking for an avenue that would prohibit his removal altogether because he was pro se all the way up through the board he didn't he would he did not have let's see here well you know there was some discussion about whether mr meyer had raised the issue before the board of immigration appeals which had raised the c i m t s you know i was adjudicated so that can't be a problem for you right yeah i mean mr markey didn't do decided that he was not eligible for cancellation of removal because of his crime involving moral turpitude determination so you know it's not like the b i a you know has completely whipped on this issue they you know i think they voted or they completely ignore the issue or that or that they didn't you know think about it whatsoever they just didn't render a specific pleadings give us a reason to due to cation which is what we usually have the benefit of when we decide these cases right but the important thing here is that the agency whether it be the i j a or the well it just means we have a are essentially deciding that issue on you on the one sided presentations in two we have nothing in writing from the from the government because they did not answer our order to take a position on this or the cia and to issue my guess is the government would file i respond i would think the government would be seeking to to do you know to now respond on that on the merits of that issue if we government the government attorney was very candid in saying that he didn't know which way the government would argue the cia and which way the agency would to go to the microphone himself but we we cannot take appeal from that that would be the end of it you would not see it again decision that we will not appeal any adverse ruling from the board to the courts because if it does that cover other things like if a if the board were to say something is not an aggravated felony etc etc you don't have the power if you know you know your honor so it's like government another words if we were to say we are interested in this issue when we may write on and we have not yet heard the government's position the government's p effect on helping you win the case we'll take we'll take the matter under advisement