next cases  position as being in the first twelve thirty one applies only when the government has authority to actually remove someone present authority to execute a removal order and second the government doesn't have that authority holding only proceeding is ongoing that's their position according to you correct so which part of that do you disagree with do you is your position that twelve thirty one does apply even when the government lacks authority to with the entire premise twelve thirty one in fact applies even if there is no current authority practical authority to put the person on a plane i think that's right you're right i do want to be careful because i think it is as course our intel from the british there can be a potential withholding so it is the government's position that while someone is litigating their withholding only proceedings they can be put on a plane to a different country without any further ado  middle of a withholding only proceeding to a different country and there's going to have to be a process there i guess what i'd say you are is it's not an issue that has been thoroughly fleshed out in this case because i am not aware that any othe name passed number of members have this issue i believe course it would but of course it would make sense right so if i was a dual citizen of two different countries and i am ordered removal reinstated in order removed and i say listen i got i have a fear of going back to ireland because of you know religious persecution but i'm also a citizen of israel and then i have a chance to make it withholding claim and i only express a fear reasonable fear of being returned to ireland it would seem you know i don't see any reason why i could not immediately be returned to israel because i had an opportunity to claim with holding with respect to either country i chose not to at least under that scenario that would seem like a an easy example where you could be removed even if the withholding on ireland was right your honor and i think i see what about people who are not dual citizens with the same rule apply to them because that would you say that every ellen has an obligation if you say we're going to deport you two hundred s and they say they raise  a credible withholding claim do they also have to list in the first instance here of the other countries that might conceive of throwing me on the line for in the middle of my withholding proceedings like you shouldn't because the seventh circuit says it doesn't work that way that actually the government has to tell don't have the that is to nation determine i think the governing regulations here say that you know even if there are the country i guess i would say the the country identify is not is not a binding if i read these two statutes i just hypothetically and i read a twelve twenty six and the language there and i say that seems to describe withholding proceeding and then i read a twelve thirty on language and i say that seems to describe someone who has a reinstated order removed so in other words that both twelve twenty six and twelve thirty one in contrast to both parties they both read that they applied if i if i came to that conclusion that based on the language structure context everything that both twelve twenty six and twelve thirty one as we describe they both apply to these particular petitioners or petitioners in their their situations tell me how i would go about deciding which controls so you could imagine the twelve twenty six there is a decision being made about how they're going to be removed and so that may well fall within twelve twenty six a but under twelve thirty one i think the language of property one eighty five suggests that there is a final order now is that final final you know that's a different question and their both buckets how would i decide which bucket controls sure you're on i think you can look to a few to a couple of guy posts here one i think the supreme court decisions are provides a good indication here the alien in that it would be very odd i think if somebody were to go through this process where they were went through the twelve twenty six process where they could be detained where they went through removal proceedings were order moved where they were put into the removal period presumably detained them removed and then committed the felony of illegal re entry when they could have got to wait a port of entry they could have done other things have to remain removed or reinstated and yet somehow end up with a better attention circumstance than they would have after they had already been ordered removed it would be very strange for somebody who commits what is under our laws a felony to be better off because of it your honor and the third point your honor i would say it is we've explained some of our deference deference point the agency does c and its regulation section twelve thirty one is governing these in these circumstances so if you aren't concerned about people why they think those are some good guy not you can i ask you a question because one thing that i think cuts in the opposite direction but you you general will routinely and predictably in a whole class of cases not being able to meet that ninety day that line and that just seems odd like you ought to construe a statute in a way to avoid a situation like that and i understand i mean say in your brief there that period can be extended it can't but there is a ninety eight deadline and it would be on for congress or for us to construe a statute so that the a g will be in violation of that deadline predictably routinely in this entire class and it's should we try to envisioned it would happen quickly resource and practical constraints make that difficult i think the supreme court nominees are be able to do it when someone has a credible withholding i mean is it your position that congress thought even if someone had a credible withholding only claim people who are granted withholding he still be detained so congress did understand that there were groups of folks who were or who are different who are in a different situation because of they have been ordered removed and therefore detention or less liberty is more appropriate or i would well when you say twelve thirty one eighty three sort of contemplates that idea right sort of what happens after the ninety day period right in a my exactly sure what twelve ninety five do a twelve thirty one eight three means but it certainly contemplates that congress sort of recognizes that there is an after the ninety day period with respect to detention eight to talks about the ninety day period eighty three says i think a judge tar recognizes there are going to be circumstances where that doesn't happen and here's here's sort of the resolution of that right you're i think i think i think twelve thirty one a three is quite helpful to that point i think probably thirty one a six and just the supreme court's recognition of the practical difficulties you are in in other cases that this is really look there are resources france congress it's hope and its intention was that these things would happen quickly but it is it is a difficult problem and impractical points to intervene really am trying to figure out what is at stake in this case that they're being detained under a see if they can get the attorney general has to make a determination that there will be a risk to the community around unlikely to comply if released and so the difference is that decision is not  any concerns of prolonged attention these in these circumstances are the ones imposed by the supreme court decision and so i was asking really a technical stuff i'm just trying to figure out why does this case matter because it seems like if they're being detained under a sense either way someone is making this determination before the meeting to mean that there are risks to the community or are likely to comply with the order of remove all so i'm just asking very technically not for an argument just is the difference who is making that determination i think it really is the bond hearing piece  then turn to the broader structured withholding statute and then discuss the government's honna three believes inconsistent with the argument that the removal period has begun to begin with the tax though for the government to prevail on this case they must demonstrate that proceedings ongoing by pointing to the contention that there could be a third country removal that's incorrect because the government must pay to be independent steps before they have that authority but let me say just be totally clear about this if the government ever happens in practice because there are two things the government must do first the government must identify the existence of a country that falls within the sash or requirements section twelve thirty one b c e puts very sharp the practical issue i want to talk to just for a second if back in iraq course about sort of the more statutory point i think i want to come back to the question that i asked your colleague but let me start with is it twelve thirty one eighty five the reinstated order includes language that sort of says is not subject to being reviewed the reinstated order and it may you may not apply for any relief right so when under your reading of this why does that not preclude with holding  all i mean it you might read that sort of naturally and say that withholding is is entirely precluded based on twelve thirty one eighty five i don't think it is but why under your sort of theory of the case what would your honor i think  must to the broader context of the immigrations that shoots and withholding both under the commission against torture that's far out as an older section twelve thirty on as well as the statute for withholding provision within twelve thirty one both of those provided a right to with all reason that it doesn't run afoul is the withholding proceeding is not a review or challenge to the reinstated order right it's a it's a separate proceeding to determine the means of executing that order right which is that independent of whether there's a removal order and all your honor i'm not sure i disagree with any of that but the reason that our positions because the question is not whether or not to reinstate or removal is ultimately reinstate conclusion of the withholding only proceedings and once those conclude that's of that that's where it becomes and this is critical there's a difference between final unlike final final stages of finality right we talk about like a district courts final which is appealable to this school and so we think about finality different and it as i'm reading twelve thirty one and it suggests to me that the finality is the reinstated order but that order is going to remain no matter what happens execution i mean execution as far as removal not in the capital context but like that execution seemed to be a separate question from the order remove what will you heard something about that especially if it's true that the underlying order of removal might not be just review but the process for reinstating it most certainly is so an individual may be able to say well it to reinstate your movie you have to show that i entered the country unlawfully but an individual can challenge that and say i did enter the country lawfully or they can say i'm not a person that's identified in the underlying order of removal those are things that are about separate from withholding only that are about the process of reinstating that order and all the courts that looked at that have found that that is something that is subject that is a that is  appropriate and subject to judicial review by the score he has one more question then i will stop because i'm a pretty confident my colleagues have questions to if i disagreed with you on that question and this is the question and your colleague earlier and i concluded that under the language structure context of twelve thirty one and twelve twenty six and eight that both of them apply to your clients that they didn't vote them both categories apply can't can you provide any guidance for me on how i would go about choosing which of those controls so if you think about that you're on a first i think the way congress structure thems are skewed themselves are against because they have different kinds and mechanism so i proceedings are still pending that are determining whether or not an individual is actually going to actually move the country in that context where do i get that like i get where do i get that from so that little summary of congress intention where not issue a stay of removal proceeding even though the ongoing withholding only receding are continuing so you have this leak out where the government removes somebody even though they are claiming that if they are removed to that country that they are they've already demonstrated whether it immigration officer integration justice satisfaction they have a reasonable fear of torture and killing if they were moved to that place the government sets up a structure where they would have the authority to remove somebody in this where it wouldn't would not have to over room asia versions sessions in order to take your view i mean it seems like judge has opinion there finds that at least for some context the orders final independent of all the rest of  all in our position is entirely consistent with with with me a case and i don't think the government suggested that we were quire overruling by any stretch the court there simply noted that there is no jurisdiction to go back and challenge really the actual substance of the original reinstated removal were and we certainly don't suggest anything to the contrary but it also determines the date on which it's final that's the part of it that sort of seems odd to me and i guess if not maybe it's not final final final right but it some well that court says the order is final when it's you know reinstated like that's the final date which is sort of inconsistent with the idea that you're saying well it's not really final because withholding is still going on actually i think the facts of me have only support and if not silently adopt our position because in media there was a withholding only proceeding that occurred in that particular case and then the court found as to that whole process it did have period that sensible because this is the ninety day period that congress doesn't need it for the individual actually be removed but this record is clear for the named plaintiff in this case the government has not attempted to get travel documents for any of these individuals the obligation government would be under through period not that sensible the government has not actually gone about trying to humans because government doesn't have the authority to remove these individuals anywhere so that's all consistent with our fundamental point that it would be exceedingly strange to say the  twenty six is structurally designed for a longer term detention that gives immigration judges us ability to adapt to those circumstances that fits the circumstances here now my friend makes the point that section twenty three one  removal proceedings and removal period will be given by the expeditiously this case the dresses the less than two percent tail that is the government's right regulations recognized as an exception how this process usually works so again this case is  about that exception the government against just that arguments with respect to deference recently don't think there's any actual ambiguity here but even if there were actual ambiguity in this case there's simply no regulation that speaks with any remote degree of get a handle on how much of your argument turns on for the practical reality that mostly if people are successful in withholding only proceeding they are not in fact removed from the country if that were different if it were the case that solution i think to highlight a key point there is section twelve thirty thirty one does not depend on the actual of belief of my friend's position is that authority to remove is defined to mean when we the government naturally this is a judge did anybody argue that that actually doesn't apply i'm not aware that the twelve thirty one twelve twenty six distinction was was presented in a joint issue there your honor but again i would emphasize that just the understanding there in the back of it just it's not hassling period on the understanding and the expectation in the hope that the attorney general now the secretary will effect way to remove order within that period or soon after that period but it's not necessarily just disappears after to such into detention during the remove a period the attorney general shall detain him i understand that there are exceptions and that the statute contemplates sometimes the attorney general to team beyond the to the extent that there is mandatory detention it is for th or some other place right but the mandatory detention of a two is tied to the removal period and that seems like an easy i mean it does it does begin with during the removal period you're right i don't think it was intended to be a trick question i just not mandatory right that there is least some discretionary authority within the secretary in this particular context but eighty two is mandatory and so we think of it differently and it's limited to the removal period statute works and you could be more helpful if you would just so section two says there's mandatory detention during the period of the removal period and then section three says at least normally if you're not removed within the re appear remove a period are going to be subject to supervision you're not going to be getting so so you get through two sections that make pretty clear that detention is tied to this ninety day period and then there absolutely is an exception and a six which i have built into my question and i've been asking you about how does that one work and your colleague was able to fill me in that the a g does make the determination the ages designees and so what's at issue here is whether we're under this these people are being detained under this exception  that is the finality the existing finality or immediate finality of a reinstate removal order as a consequence of congress this is congress's decision in section twelve thirty one a fight take a harder line on reinstated removal orders there is a