good morning your honour's in the police record frank sproles appearing for the petitioner obviously in this case there's two separate issues the initial issue of course is the magistrate who dismissed this case for a lack of jurisdiction and if the  i don't need fifteen minutes i have to concede that my the district court essentially relied on morale as is co are go which really is morale as is core duo three which in which he said that you should have filed a direct petition for review of the reinstated order and therefore you could have brought up all of these reliance on constitutional issues and i think that's not really the case immoralities this also happened the real i d act intervened during that case so what happened was the petition filed a direct appeal of the reinstated order to the ninth circuit and that spawned our allies one morale was two which dealt with who has the jurisdiction to reinstate tomorrow maybe i can help  you the district court basically made that ruling because it found that the relief that your client was requesting was in her inextricably intertwined with his his request to challenge the reinstatement the remov order doesn't that squarely fit within the provisions in the real id act to deprive us of jurisdiction which he did but i mean she said she said the reason there's no jurisdiction is because you could have brought up all of those things in the petition for review and so therefore since it's inexplicably to the order i'm not going to listen to that is ultimately the relief he's looking for he wants to challenge the reinstatement or not really you know the argument is that it's antecedent to that would remove the it's like the montgomery ward and the parish and the duran cases they were saying that since he had this waiver pending for each others that before they could issue that reinstated order he should have been able to file his adjustment of status in conjunction with  waiver that had been pending since i'm not sure the clinton administration had been pending a long time but we don't have jurisdiction to adjudicate requests to change that is doing well i mean  how is it any different then the could actually in the context of behaviors corpus proceed right but i mean my point was we had no forum to make i mean it's not really any different than the class of aliens in duran who had prior orders that were reinstated and that same argument could have been made to them that the panel there said yes you can bring this into haiti is to demonstrate montgomery ward reliance and those other kind of factors so that's was our conundrum is that if we had done what the district court said f court to do with an ad in essence order the agency to take action and justice that right then probably we don't have jurisdiction to do that either so how do we get out of the jurisdictional can and room that's what i'm trying to do well it wasn't that it was that we're trying to you know part of the argument for the just record is number one that this is we're trying to bootstrap we're conflate or say it's analogous to the duran montgomery ward case is that he had this i two twelve commission to reenter after deportation pending for years that reasonably thought he could not be laid him from deportation and that well he had to do it he can't get that adjustment made if if the removal order  executed right that's that's why you want the removal order set aside right but we're saying that he had a pending request for a waiver of that deportation years before and i said i understand that but but but the relief that you were seeking in the district court was two pronged was it not the first you want to make sure that he didn't get removed because if he gets removed then he can adjust the status and so you in essence what you wanted the court to do was to lift the removal order to stay and i guess and then order the agency to make a ruling on his request for adjustment of status is that what you were basically yes which is no different than the class of aliens in duran that's exactly mean th were two separate groups one group that had been here for one year left and returned in the other were a group that had prior workers of deportation and had been reinstated and the argument was that you know the montgomery ward realize that the change in the law should not be applied retroactively and so i was trying to say that this ought to be the same concept that he is functionally the same now i truly am aware of judge kozinski very vigorous dissent karf us and certainly my client did less in the real world than they did  essentially sat on his i two twelve for many years i can see that and that's a tough inconvenient facts for me but basically if he had been if they had tried to reinstate the order at any time prior to you know maybe after good morning me please the court my name is elizabeth stevens and i represent the united states in this case mr ramirez sought to mandate adjustment of status or education of before my to twelve permission to reapply for admission that for my to twelve directly impacts whether or not his reinstated removal order would the reinstatement of his removal order would be valid because once his order is reinstated  pursuant to statute he cannot apply for any benefit under the immigration and nationality act as far as in the united states now that doesn't take all relief away from ramirez still has a valid i one thirty petition that has been approved on his behalf that's not a visa however that's just a petition and it gives him the status of being able to apply for  he can still go back to peru and apply for an immigrant visa in peru he can apply for a two twelve waiver once he has left the united states mr america is in a very interesting position because he is not subject to the absolute ten year bar because his re entries we believe that there have been multiple re entries it's hard to figure out exactly how twelve a nine c inadmissible which is would be subject to the permanent the ten year outside the united states can apply until after ten years are done he is he is subject to now what is new to twelve a night what is new to twelve by nine a nine a and was where he has to have the two twelve actually i believe he has to have two to twelve because he's inadmissible two of them well there's the two twelve i which is an actual waiver and then there's the i two twelve which is permission to reapply gonzales i had lots of fun trying to keep all the two twelve's separate but now he will need to one is because he has committed a crime involving moral turpitude that was his first crime committed i believe after his removal order was entered but before it was executed and then he has several duis including one and two in two thousand and twelve not those those have not been found to be crimes involving moral turpitude but when he applied for under two twelve j he can apply for the mother and well this is this is this is the i to twelve but he can apply in advance under a program that the citizenship and immigration service started the district court was entirely correct in finding that if electors stiction to make any ruling on the i two twelve waiver interfering with the reinstated order  in so far as any money from reward analysis the titian or cannot point to any and if we're going with montgomery ward and we're going with the  the opinion in garfield's what he would have to have is an agency opinion that made his relief that he relied on to still be eligible for relief mr ramirez can't point reversed by the supreme court in fernandez vargas there's there's no reliance there he mr mr ramirez cannot show any reliance on a decision of the board that is retroactively applied to him and that's why montgomery ward doesn't apply very very briefly in terms of the montgomery ward reliance our argument was that there was certainly agency practice for years that allowed the i to twelve to be due to catered in the united states without the multiple dancing to twelve's at the consulate are further argument is that we're saying that he's in the shoes of the rand because just like that the rand people he has and the i two twelve pending i concede i wasn't representing him that he had not filed the adjustment but if he had been if the service had attempted to reinstate that order at any time until the carthaginian decision of taran he could have filed and he would have been this he could have filed the adjustment you didn't have to be done completely contemporaneously and then he