the petition for review that petition was timely filed within thirty days of the entry of the order that marked the conclusion of the removal proceedings following the b i l s order remaining the case for consideration of voluntary departure reason he could also sought review from the i a s or to remain in his case the immigration judge but nothing in those cases forecloses him from also seeking review after the proceedings on remand are complete that is the proceedings that mark the consummation of the agency's decision making process and conclusively determine mr president has rights and obligations as a result of the removal proceedings that saying is what then says you can't do this twice you lost your chance if you didn't do it the first to a prior grant a voluntary departure in that situation i think the b a s order could reasonably be said to be the order that marks the consummation of the agency's decision making process but that's far afield from the situation here all the distinction but how is that different well your honor i believe the distinction between advise ols and every man for consideration of eligibility for relief is  supported by the language of the statute of eleven zero one a forty seven itself when the b i a remains for advise ols it's in effect affirming i j s order granting granting relief it's just it's just a purely illogic of having anything other than a single clear day so the thi petitioner can know when it is supposed to try to come to the court of appeals the alternative argument which seeks to distinguish saying provides an even more nuanced or even more confusing basis to figure out when you might get a second bite of the apple i perceive that you're on our i i don't believe that it the rule that we're advocating is more confusing because although under a non citizen does have the ability to petition from the v a s remained order if you adopted our reading of saying says you can think of earning examples of where there are two different potential appeal points or in our case petition true review poorly it's the one sort of classic one would be in the in the situation of the where there's a motion for to reopen or for reconsideration that by by statute there's there's necessarily necessity to two petitions that that are then consolidated in other they're consolidated if there have been two petitions but have somebody waits until after the motion to reopen has been resolved by the agency your petition at that moment is limited to the motion to reopen it's the second petition doesn't open the door to complain about what happened the first time and that won't work for you here because you don't want to limit our review to what happened on the voluntary departure final step so it can you think there are no other examples or you suggest there are two windows but going through window number two is sufficient to reach issue number one i would say not in not in the immigration context off the top of my head your honor but i would say in the context of say denial of qualified immunity there's an opportunity for the for the officer or the city to to appeal that denial or any interlocutory appeal where there's there's an opportunity for interlock to review but the decision not to seek until october your view at that point doesn't foreclose a decision that covers all of the merits after a final decision is entered but what do we do with the language of the statute that says that petition for if you have an order of removal must be f later than thirty days after the date of the final order as if there's only one ice you're on are certainly agree that a better rule and i think the government also agrees that a better rule would be a regime where there is just one  will certainly the question of whether the court should take this case up on bond to address the issue brings us at least briefly to the question of how strong your client's case is if the merits are reached the case it's powerful on the merits is going to be more attractive and you know the process of this court more attractive for the rest of the court to decide to take up on bach and one of the concerns i have about this case is that your client's case doesn't seem particularly strong on the merits a consistent rule across the board that avoids non citizens no matter the merits of their case from being deprived of the opportunity for judicial review as a result of confusion about the rules about timeliness but it's this this court routinely remains in situations where the where the b i a has not provided adequate reasoning for the dismissal of a case and here the b i a appears to have president was was living with his father before he fled the country his father was a field worker with no no no political connection so i think mr prescott steele was deemed credible by the aide i j he testified plausibly that he believed his father had been kidnapped and likely killed by guerillas the that that testimony supported by the country conditions reports that indicate there are still widespread disputes force disappearances killings  kidnappings going on in guatemala and  zero heard from members of his former community was that this was the same guerrillas that had been involved and i think the understanding is that there was a connection between mr president terry service and his his father because course jonathan robbins here on behalf of the acting attorney general good morning to all of you i agree with my colleague that there needs to be a consistent rule bud's the government respect we submit that there already is a consistent rule in this case made a big deal in this brief about how the government has previously taken the position that the rule should be otherwise that we should wait until everything is done but the court has rejected that and we now have precedent i would note that the s specifically noted that it waited to see if the court wanted to rehear the issue in the result case the court declined to do so so i think we're seedlings wearily now in the realm of so law so well i understand that there may be a certain amount of you could it could be argued that there is not on the actual order that ends up either granting or denying voluntary departure but then really shouldn't make much of a difference because that that is actually completely nullified the rule  of the supreme court's decision in stone against a minus which came of course in the motion to reopen context where the supreme court has made clear that separate petitions prove you have to be filed for separate for separate final result of the agency so well that suggest then that under the rule of reserve there are two different opportunities now granted our review of a voluntary departure is extremely limited it's entirely extinguished so that if we follow the rule you advocate we do have in fact are would have in this case mr perez christie oh did have the opportunity which he may not have appreciated to seek review after the b i as decision and he would have had another opportunity limited to the voluntary departure peace and sense he was granted a voluntary departure he wouldn't have added anything but suppose for a moment that was denied he would at least in theory have had the opportunity to petition or of you at that point as he did here except that the petition would have been limited to whatever issues there were on the voluntary departure piece so i'm not sure the current rule is quite as simple as as you might be characteriz addressed the merits of asylum holding a cat he has lost his ability to petition for a view on those particular issues and i think given the state of the presidential case law in this court i don't really know how we can get to a different conclusion once the case is back before the i j a to consider voluntary departure could some other issue come up i mean i understand the premise of the exchange you just have the judge left in but what if something you have as the family in a type a way we would usually see in a motion there is some other issue that needs to be addressed resulting it is that i mean is that kind of an understood procedure so if someone is in the voluntary departure proceeding part of this and raises something new is it clear that what you do at that point is to consider any other issues that might be perfect but as a practical matter you don't usually see the situation where the immigration judge says ok well i'm denying asylum it's been remade it grew up entered berkshire and i'm just reversing without anything else  previous granted asylum there would usually be some either additional evidence additional testimony some other factor that would make it akin to a motion to reopen right where you have either new evidence or some something in the cases changed me to the administrative record has become stale and th in the previous evidence is no longer pertinent but i don't i don't think i've ever seen a case in which the b agency just reversed its prior decision without anything else coming into play but i but to answer your last question i think that the question your honor i think was asking i suppose it would depend on what the i g addressed i mean if it if the you know that the person doesn't know that at that at the first at the time every man when they have to decide whether to put attention for review they don't know if that if they have addressed anything else understand of what your your duty is in this case in terms of sustaining the the agency's decision but as a as a policy proposition  would you agree that it would be desirable if there in any context and this problem comes up in context outside of immigration it would be easier if we had one clear single da when you file an appeal or bring a petition i remember going to a c only program back when i was practicing and a hawaiian state supreme court justice said it gets confusing sometimes so if in doubt file another notice of appeal you may have five of them but it's better than not having the one that you need and the law is complicated and that way in a field where petitioners are often appearing pro se or with perhaps the help of somebody who's not entirely learned with the law it seems to me there's a powerful policy reason for preferring a single clear date our current president doesn't permit that and i understand that but would you have anything to say with regard to the proposition as to whether  and we argued from that position we argued that the court's decision result was wrong the only reason that i know that we're taking this position today is that we lost and we are bound by precedence i agree that it would probably be simpler if you would for proof the litigants to have a bright line date on all of these situations but you know given that the court has declined to get up and review and reserve and reconsider that i don't know when civil law becomes entrenched law but i mean we're pretty close to that line right  so kevin i was asked that question several times it's a hard question to answer right so so i think i certainly think at least fletcher general's position was exactly that as opposed to matter we should have the bright line rule if this case consider were to be considered on bunk or to be reconsidered on bunk i can't say that his position would be the same i don't know what his position would be whether it would be altered but as in i mean i don't want to speak for something that i don't know but in my experience he generally tends to maintain consistent positions before the courts in that regard when they go on appeal to the supreme court so i read it as a policy matter and the government previously read that as a policy matter that would probably be the best course but nevertheless the president is what it is with the terms of a student visa if you are going to if you were going to write this case how would you distinguish pinto pinto your honor i would say that neither neither pinto nor rich although pinto and reso both provide that there is regardless of policy matters we can't just jump off as a panel with policy matters we have to deal with cases and i don't i don't see your argument where you i can see argument on it in bank but i would have difficulty writing a case with a straight face overruling pentode for this case your honor we're certainly not asking the panel to overrule pinto we recognize that there's that there is some tension between the position we're taking here but the history this is this court this court has recognized that there is a need to construe the immigration laws in favor of providing review for mortars that would otherwise go unchecked and that's our policy but this is a difference between a policy an actual  departure thank you thank you we really appreciate your pro bono assistance in this case thank you for your service and this case is