instantaneously instantaneously with his application the constitutional violation can not be remedied in any respect other than in haiti as at this point the council because that's where i have a have a little difficulty this yesterday as counsel for the government knows the immigration judge issued an order of removal in the immigration proceedings that were initiated after the government recently said that its reinstatement order well then you can from what you said the immigration judge said it did not but they can correct that or not and then you can come back to this court squarely presenting the issue of whether the i j a goofed by not applying collateral  final order based on the evidence you're hearing that was conducted at some length before judge read it became a final order of once the government decided not to appeal that order following just reach this missile what occurred after that was the vice i tended to reinstate the order we filed a petition to prevent his expeditious removal or expedited removal at that point ever since that time the hague just petition has issue with all due respect the way that this ended up being back before the immigration judge in the first place was the restriction of the reinstatement order and which translated into an attempt to avoid just reads as findings of fact i don't think oh i could be litigated when it gets back here i assume that's why i asked i not apply he's out of out of the country now well yes i think if the court decides the collateral sample doesn't apply there would be i think that's correct that is correct however if reserved two minutes but i am out of time i think so try hard question to you earlier was are you going to agree to let him out and your answer was he could apply which i think his answer is no right yes that is the answer but i think it's important to keep it in a procedur well we said we would take him into immigration because the behaviors case was dismissed and it was dismissed and we contend that it was properly dismissed and we were very much up front about what we intended to do  you is the appropriate judgment of this court to affirm the dismissal then there is no context in which an order of release on bail is operative he can then seek if he wishes to obtain release pending the appeal to the bureau of immigration board of immigration appeals and if he remains dissatisfied with b b i a does j process or the immigration process yes ok there we go yes he is if you meet the requirements if he is in eligible for release because he is an aggravated felony who is an alien then he is not entitled to release  very creative way of holding the status quo allowing him to remain released and to allow the administrative process to unfold not unlike quite why in the real world can because i think i have to preserve the integrity of the statutory bar that there and i think we need to acknowledge congressional directive that certain people should not be released pending their immigration appeal and i years old and a thrice convicted felon who is eligible to remain in this country he wants the court to pretend that he's eighteen months old in the in his mother's arms in one thousand nine hundred sixty five or holding his mother's hand crossing the border at age seven and that he is eligible for a magical certificate of nat of citizenship which he was not entitled to or eligible for even in one thousand nine hundred seventy one that fantasy world is not  the government from giving consideration to the rather strong suggestion from my colleagues that that that bail be considered right except you've already rejected it really because you petitioner and he when we rescinded the reinstatement and we initiated a new removal proceeding that allowed him a jurisdictionally recognizable mechanism for raising all of the claims that he wishes to raise collateral stop preclusion issue preclusion anything else that he wants to raise and in fact he has raised those if for the immigration judge the immigration judge as of yesterday rejected those claims and issued an order remove that order i'm sorry you want to do supplement the record without order so i know what it sounds i don't or do we have a decision or just an order of removal i believe it was an order of remove all that was issued yesterday by the immigration judge in reno i said i don't have a copy of it and i can provide it with counsel stipulation if that's important to your honor but i think now and he has an opportunity to appeal that to the board of immigration appeals and again raise all of the issues which he would wish to use to contest his assumes that he will be dissatisfied with everything that happens during that review process you watch this court to shortcut the process and terminate the proceeding and declare him a citizen and it's our view that simply no jurisdiction for the district court to do that and no mechanism for this court to do that in the context of this hevia proceeding that he should allow that this court should allow the removal proceeding to unfold  determining that the government was a start from claiming that he was an alien an alien and finding affirmative governmental misconduct in order which the government did not appeal from it seems as in some ways when the government says that yes you're in i think you in fact you wrote an opinion back in two thousand and one other thing which i think in many ways provided a roadmap to the government to provide the mechanism b reinstate the order and litigate those issues but they decided not to do that and this is partly in response to your question also in response to their argument that the governmental interest in maintaining his ailing status superseded any criminal  case your case was decided in two thousand and one this litigation began in two thousand and three and ended up in hideous in two thousand and four they knew what to do if they wanted to keep the record clean but they made a decision the government made a decision to follow the criminal case and litigate the factual merits and the conclusions of and the legal issues that were raised there and they failed they lost and they didn't appeal the only remedy that we had left at that point was to file the heaviest petition and seek those remedies when the real id presented and issue for them to rescind the reinstatement they washed away all that anger and your directive and your direction in this case completely and then proceeded to put him and really in removal hearings once  again apparently with a clean slate even though the allegations were the same as they had been before they disregarded essentially your direction and out of anger to do that but here the constitutional claim and the due process  issues now and with respect to collateral estoppel it is not really beyond any serious dispute that we litigated the issue of alienation and that they were stopped and i cannot go beyond it seems like two thousand years ago somebody said it was a holy mass that it was easier for a wealthy man and a camel to walk through an eye of the needle into a well for a wealthy man to give up his his wealth here it seems to be that that scene