could you speak directly into the mike please or can you hear me now ok think status that would make him potentially eligible for supplemental security income benefits question i think to the chase or at least i intended to and that is it seems to me that the only question we really have to decide is whether he has a final and enforceable order of red mobile is that right i think that's one of two issues the other issue is whether he was offered a hearing that allowed him fundamental due process to present a case that was consistent with the notice he received that told him what he might argue in present right on the first issue which is your main issue i think there's one that's the question does he have a final enforceable order of removal and so if you can if you could just focus on that one first that would be helpful always tension and so my understanding is that our procedure on this and it is done he's got the final order of removal and the reason cryptic and this is certainly not the only person who's ever been in this position in the government just makes a cryptic man can and i think cites a newspaper article that a thousand people have indeed been deported i don't know where they're going or how that's working could you speak to that point i don't know where that came from i would only be speculating i couldn't speak that i didn't all right i'll ask the government when it comes up thank you thank you council what's your best case authority to support the proposition that if there is no where to remove the immigrant that the final removal order is negated what case are regulation are you relying upon for that argument i really wasn't able to find anything to address that on point i i think i'm trying to understand that if he's here in that the order cannot be carried out then it's effective he's under a supervisory order but there is no where to send him he is here but that doesn't mean that the order to remove all that there is no final that's the difficulty i'm having with the argument is that doesn't  se the fact that there is indeed a final order of removal in his file and that has certain legal consequences your honor i can agree that there is a final order that is not appeal but it's not enforceable because there is no place to send him is there another place in the in the code where we talk about a final there's a lot of places we talk about of the congress and the agency and its regs talks about a final order of  mobile but i what about a final enforceable order of a mobile that seems to be unique and i wonder if it's unique to this statute given the situation with cuba i your honor i would not pretend to tell you i'm  would i do it this way do you know of any other place where a final enforceable order of removal i do not i do not i who have the burden of proving that he was eligible for this relief didn't he have the burden yes he does has violated a serious felony which also would disqualify him from getting social security benefits would not subject to a legal to a final not appealable enforceable order of removal he's potentially eligible to receive supplemental security income benefits he's well he's potentially but even if he is potentially izzie eligible when he has this serious conviction on his record yes sir i think he is and i say that because i have represented  individuals with criminal histories who have been found eligible for supplemental security income and also social security disability benefits the standards are about medical disability and financial eligibility criminal history doesn't seem to be a factor that i've it's not been a barrier anyway when i've had clients with records say the balance of your time for a bottle yes all right thank you counsel warning may it please the court jeff staples on behalf of the commissioner who asked that you affirm the district court's judgment because the decision is supported by substantial evidence although this is not what i would call the standard social security appeal i think the facts and issues are fairly straightforward really the only question that we have here is whether the final non appealable removal order is enforceable and what mr enforced literally without a cuban agreement actually your honor that's not quite accurate because under very united states code he could be sent to any country with a government that would accept him so council getting to my question that i asked earlier your brief i think sites is that a newspaper article it's a p b s yes can you help us out with that was something a little more so that was a footnote related to our argument that the mere fact that cuba doesn't agree to take cuban deportees does not mean that the order is not enforceable doesn't mean that we couldn't send him somewhere yes counsel and i'm asking you to get to the  you mean your brief argues that a thousand people have been removed i'm asking you to help support that statement i don't have anything like a case that would show that have a government document honor i have nothing to that effect it is a thousand people where they go where i think that that was i guess that wasn't meant to be an offer of proof that bet of anyone else's deportation status it was just meant to illustrate the general principle that the that these orders are can be enforced theoretically they're in force of all that yes and specifically this order is in force a bowl even though it has not been enforced in and if you look at your eleven you have a much stronger argument and i'm not saying that i don't prevail i'm very mindful of who has the burden of proof here but what i'm looking for your argument seems to be that the government could enforce this against him where would they send him has anybody agreed to take him you know i working for the social security administration i don't know how the department of homeland security decides where to send people i don't know how the ok i don't know how that mechanism works but what we have in this record your honor is the order of supervision saying that at any time the d h s s tells mr for he is required to show up and be deported if t h s decides to do that and and that's right there in the record of the are eleven and so that shows that at least you just believes it's in forcible maybe not maybe they're not going to enforce it today or tomorrow but they could in any time and and they've put that right in the record there it's just the obvious problem that you've got with if you're going that route is that this statute was an active at a time when congress was you know used the word final and enforceable very aware of the fact that castro wasn't taking them back if i can yes and i work hand in so that's what that's what jumps off the page at us because there are so many instances of the code talking about final orders of removal without using the word enforceable it seems in your stronger argument is  he's got the burden of proof that's what they relied on and certainly proven he didn't need to that point are the commissioners we reference the palms today the mr force the ledo had at the opportunity he had a hearing he was asked  the please show me any kind of documentation that would show me that this order isn't what it appears to be because what it appears to be is a final non appealable enforceable order and v h s makes that determination at the hearing what was going on in terms of the l g a asking him to show the green card what was the reason for that you know he was offering to show work related permit  j was saying was that he was offering he wasn't just offering to give the green party said that he didn't have that he was offering to give a work permit and there's nothing in here that shows you can't work but even if you can work here that doesn't mean that the order is not final anon appealable and enforceable so what the l j was getting at and you know maybe something got lost in translation but what the elder was asking for is any kind of documentation that would show me that this is either not final not process because my understanding of what they were offering to give was that work permit it was not a green card he doesn't have a green card and he said that at the hearing he said i don't have a green card and so they weren't offering to give that they were offering to give something that was not germane to this discussion and so that's why the l g said no i'm not going to hold this open for you to give something that doesn't inform my analysis when they ask for a green card i think what he meant was and i think also said to show me something of your legal status here show me something that you're allowed to be here and something that would kind of undercut what the record already shows which is you could be deported at r status show me but l p r status and not just a work authorization is that what you're yes yes so so mr force a ledo was was saying oh i have a work permit and i can show that i can bring that to you if you hold the record open and the l j was saying no that doesn't do it that's what i think that's why the l g was referring to a green card you know give me something more than just in the interim while we don't deport you you can work here that doesn't change anything so i'm i don't need that document what i need and this is where the maybe was confused and asked for a green card but i think it's pretty clear that what the l g was asking for is something something stronger something that would show that you would be qualified in your immigrant status to receive supplemental security income benefits because on the record before the l j it seemed pretty clear that there's a he was he did serve a twenty four year prison sentence for an aggravated felony and folks that are in prison are ineligible to receive benefits but once you're out of prison you see you can that prior conviction is not a  categorical bar although here v aggravated felony led to mr force allay those removal and so or the order of removal at least so so it is germane to that piece of the analysis and the fact that he was convicted of an aggravated felony makes him ineligible for withholding of the removal and it led to this final order that's referred to repeatedly in the administrative record so because substantial evidence supports the algaes finding that mr force eladio is not qualified to receive supplemental security income benefits the court should affirm the district court rebuttal your honor i think the rebuttal that i have focuses on fundamental due process and i think those arguments jump out at me after hearing counsel eligibility is limited to the first seven years after deprecation or remove all is with held and then if we turn to x or to record ten it does say in the first full sentence below the heading that the order is pursuant to section two forty three b of the i  received and among other the other items he was allowed to demonstrate that he satisfied any of these and then he would accordingly be potentially eligible for supplemental judge asked whether he satisfied any or all of the items in numerated in the notice of disapproved claim if i agree with you that your client had wobbly notice or imperfect notice of what was required to  him this is your opportunity to tell me how he was prejudiced he was prejudiced because the judge imposed extra requirements that mr force a later was not obliged to shown he was under an order of removal that had been withheld under section two forty one b three of the i n a the order has been but he wasn't subject withholding because we've been convicted of an aggravated felony is my understanding he's not eligible for withholding  of the notices in the statues aren't defining terms well they're leaving them up to anyone's guess what they mean withheld under section two to forty three so it's not subject it reads to me as if that's exactly what's taking place here section two forty three b of the immigration nationality act is what's being involved here the order is being withheld and in lieu of an order  remove all he's been placed under an order of supervision generally if there's a withholding of remove or under the statute there's an order to that effect from an immigration judge there is there is an order of remove all bu