and ninety six for allianz who arrived at our borders or enter illegally and have no entry documents such allianz are clearly inadmissible and have no right to be in this country congress reasonably concluded that a full blown removal hearing was not necessary to make that determination congress was also concerned however for the about the possibility for de lay and abuse of the asylum system if every time such a clearly contends that the suspension clause requires a fact laden judicial review of the negative fear or credible fear determination made and that screening process congress however a lot of preserve approach was necessary for the control of immigration and control of the borders is entitle to great weight and it is consistent with the suspension clause st congress has repeatedly said that elli in seeking admission is entitle only to the procedures congress has provided and it is held for more than one hundred years the congress made vast the determination of whether an individual in and six skloot a ball in an executive office or indeed it said that a determination by such an officer acting within his jurisdiction is due process for purposes of the constitution and when such an order is issued under this system that expedited removal order of stablish is the government's withstanding his inadmissibility certain either it's one thing when an alien comes and has no protected ground to stay here there's no legal right to st and so expedited proceedings are ok because they have no right to be here but when someone seeking asylum they have a statutory right to stay if they meet the elements of the statu so that's a vastly different question of whether the suspension clause which predated the due process clause by a one hundred years the suspension clause at the time it was used as permitting anyone who had a legal claim to state to file the papers petition i don't know how that right all of a sudden gets transformed merely because there's a nd constitutional right to due process well meaning those are two different provisions of the constitution one predated the other from puerto rico and you think that your citizenship gives you a right to come in whole slew of cases from the fidelity era under the suspension clause who said you have to so i don't know that's the same thing you assume the person has no clear right but they do have a right to say if they meet the criteria of the as responses to that those finality those finality era cases all uniformly hold that a court may not review the determination in an individual case whether the alan has satisfied the conditions for and an officer picks him up and put him in prison and he would like to say to a court judge the officer was wrong on the law he has no such right but we have a statute that says judge you can only review whether he did order him put in prison would you say that's consistent with the purpose of habeas which after  the of what the officer has done not to just review whether he ordered him put in jail and that right became a right of the people not just the king the king wanted to see if his officers were following the law now they may have a lot of discretion and so forth but here we have a statute which says judge you cannot determine whether the officer has followed the law all you can determine is whether he issued an order saying keep him in jail or send him wherever whatever well i mean  inconsistency with a b s and the right of the people to bring it to see if the kings or the presidents or whoever's officers are following the law would seem fairly seriously wouldn't well that is that what you're describing is quite different from what we have here again respondent like any almost any alien an expedited removal does not the fact that he has no right to be in the country what he's what he seeks is a review of a of a screening determination that he is doesn't have a credible fear entitling him to enabling him to get relief  cases of a situation where a person is inadmissible considerably but wants to receive relief from a move and that significant asylum for this because i just don't understand this mr neither because uncertain conditions if he shows certain things he has a right to asylum and what he's trying to get is a hearing that adequately determines whether he can show those things so you know on certain conditions he has a right to release he has a right to live in this country and that's exactly what he's challenging but is whether is is his getting a fair hearing to determine that question this is a very different context where someone is saying not that he has a right under domestic law to be in this country but the he doesn't want to be sent back to another country because of his fear of conditions there this is directly like the rule of non inquiry and that is been applied for many many years and extradition which is one of the analogies that respondent drawls of a court may not review the determination in the eye extradition context of the executives determination about whether a person the treatment the person  might experience in another country you don't contest i guess i'm just not really quite understanding this argument because you don't contest that under the statute if he shows certain things he has a right to remain in this country as and per the asylum statute well for again asylum is discretionary he does not have a right under the asylum statute and congress in affording the right to go through the screening process was not required to attach to it judicial review and if congress knew that was coming maybe it wouldn't have provided for asylum at all and for withholding and cat protection as it was clear from the prior argument that's not and for the right to be in this country it is simply a withholding of being sent to another country this court's unanimous decision and munaf is very much one point in that respect the court there held that it is not for a court in the a b s corpus even involving a citizen to review the conditions of the place where the person would be sent here we have an l in an expedited removal who is assimilated to one at the border who has no right to be in the combined i mean there might be circumstances or even in your argument the claim is a claim that this particular judge who is an immigration official this particular individual behaved unlawfully contrary to the constitution he didn't even come into the room you've read their brief he did it for religious reasons he's against us he did it because i mean there are certain claims that it's possible congress cannot take away without let's say a hearing which they've had and the individual lost it i'm having a hard time because i can think of analogies distinguishing it from a case like this but what happened he's walking down the street and thrown into jail and and there he claims you know st you do see the analogies but only why they're no actually i don't see the analogy because this is a very know you'd have to at least if he has a right to mercy under the stuff but if you're there all the ninety's cases and so forth you know the chinese exclusion cases and so forth which analogizes it very much for hey be as purposes in turn to being put into jail i mean for haiti is purposes and so if you accept all those cases then what even looking at it in that way what those courts repeatedly hold all the way back to the court's officer and that is due process and once the executive officer acting within his jurisdiction makes that determination that is so that is the executives ability to detain the person and that is particularly true as i say where the question is not whether the person is entitled to come into this country because of domestic considerations but where the claim is based on please don't send me back to another country because of conditions in that country and that is squarely in addition in the realm of the rule of non inquiry were congress may if it wants to after a full removal hearing it is provided for review of cat claims and withholding claims but this is a this is a  system deliberately designed by congress to be a quick screening so that the system does not get bogged down and delay and which ellens would be here for a long period of time and maybe get released into the population because there's no sufficient dead space where congress did was try to accommodate the interest in affording a person to at least make a claim of the cylon and the need for expedited removal by having the screening system and what respondent is seeking here is basically a fact laden review is no statutory interpretation question is involved here what he wants is a fact laden review of the determination that he has not established a credible fear even in the context of whether an alien and  that was not reviewable under the long line of this court's decisions during the finality era but in addition because the nature of the of the screening involved here concerning fears of conditions in another country does your constitutional principle change at some point based on how long the non citizen has been in the country even though on lawfully we think congress is entitle to make a judgment about about how long again this is an act of congress and we think congress is judgment along those lines to be respected going to be by will why the normal way i think this is just my view but the normal way th courts have dealt with the kind of problem you're raising is you say something like there's tremendous discretion on the part of the executive branch or sometimes it's a political question we won't even review it but do midi end says that the detainee has the right to go into court under hay b s and to make his claim now the judge we didn't really talk about may have tremendous discretion may not may say it's up to the executive branch may say all the things that you said i don't know but what you can't  do at least under boo media is to take away his right to go into court and to make his claim to the judge what is your response my response is congress did not take away habeas corpus congress preserve even even in that in under hague traditional habeas and immigration context i see courts did not review factual determinations and in particular they should not be required to review congress does so  your position so i understand it let's assume and i'm barring justice briar's assumption that there is an error of law either of unwarranted cannot be given because i was i understand this statute there are only three reasons that you can get judicial review and none of them have to do with their resupply yes we think congress is not required by the suspension clause to provide for review of errors so i would guess in this context all right so how do you deal with the finale of the error cases you're absolutely right that they said that  cases don't actually hold in our view but the suspension clause required that by putting it to one side they did not involve the situation here were what a person is is seeking is reviewing not of a statutory right to come into the country because of domestic satisfying domestic requirements but review of a desire not to be sent to another country because of conditions here there and we only deal of freedom life liberty and freedom is and what the finality area era cases showed is that you have a right to remain if you have a right to remain and so if they have a right a legal right illegal lehrer's been committed with respect to asylum doesn't matter whether they are seeking release here and not to be turned back somewhere else your freedom has been stopped that's what all of these chinese exclusion cases were about people at the shore people who were stopped at a border the shore is equivalent to a border so i having trouble with your argument because you're turning around what the idea of hey b s is that's when the government stops your liberty them of resigning if you have a right to remain you have a right not to go someplace else i don't think the court can look just at the finality cases although we think they answer the question here because this is a fact laden review the court also has no but you're going further now but the court also has to consider that the rule of nine inquiry cases in which the court has repeatedly held all the way back to nearly with a lineage as as old as our immigration laws that review is not available to review the conditions or what will happen to the person when he goes to another country lot the the focus is hippias is not the issue where are you going to be released to the issue is are you going to really be released here but but but if some years it is if someone is sought for extradition purposes and they are in the united states and they are claiming don't send me to another country that is requested by extradition because of what the procedures will be there what treatment i will be i will receive there the rule of non inquiry has sustained the ability of congress not to provide for judicial review and that was citizens not nothing and you're saying that they were entitled to a kind of proceeding that this person is not just because he's has mr you know sort of that the best kind of claim you can make to stay in this country which is that if we turn you back you'll be subject to torture or persecution why should that be person be treated less well in terms of the kinds of procedures he can invoke than the person in the anality era cases which had no connection at all and who had no fear of persecution or torture of again in the finality or era cases the courts did no review the fact based determination about whether someone came within the statute and they specifically did not include the situation where the where the claim is about conditions in another country and that in this court's decision in moon off it might have been claimed that the secretary of state was somehow misinterpreting kat when he decided that the that the person should be or the department of defense who stayed in the extradition case might be misunderstanding the  interpretation of the treaty but you were do were just you know it does not only speak to pure factual matters your view applies to legal matters and mixed questions as well but there is no statutory interpretation the you actually we don't think that you know did you follow the law as to the procedural requirements that the law states is a fact laden review but i think it's a pretty common thing for courts to do you know they did this executive officer question did the executive officers follow the rules that he was supposed to follow if i could just step back for a moment that the common law the finality era cases all the sources that are looked at nothing affirmative establishes a right of judicial review of this sort of screening determination that congress decided could be attached to the expedited removal system and congress is judgment and those in that situation should be entitled to great respect want a court to determine whether to review an executive determination as to whether i will be tortured in another country and in moving off the court didn't try to separate whether the executive had decided the question of law a question of fact it was sufficient that the executive had made a determination regarding conditions in another country here and there's even less review because it's an in preliminary screening to see whether the person has even made a credible fear showing about conditions in another country and we think that that is squarely within the realm of things that habeas corpus does not have to be available to nd guess the executives determination otherwise you could have considerable delay there at nine thousand as we point out in our brief there are nine thousand negative credible fear determinations that have been made in recent years one hundred thousand credible system and we think congress is judgment that that is not constitutionally required it is entitle to great respect otherwise you will have protracted proceedings it could it could lead to ellen's being released into the country that in turn could create an incentive to come into the country and be released and undermine the whole point of congress in acting the expedited removal system thank you counsel mr chief justice may please the court the statute here eliminates any meaningful role for the courts even to ensure that the statutes and regulations were followed during the sixty year finality period congress also tried to exclude the courts leaving only that review that was quote unquote required by the constitution this court nonetheless continue to review legal claims in haiti as it did so while expressly a rejecting the government's argument that deportation was not the type of restraint that triggers haiti as it did so critically in cases to review statutory and regulatory limits even where the court expressly how that those particular non citizens lacked constitutional procedural due process rights it did so where the non citizen was seeking initial entry where the non citizen was in the country illegally and most critically in response to what the government said in cases where the non citizen was removable and seeking only to challenge the denial of relief from removal to finality or cases are consistent with the common law and answer each of the government's arguments the government has cited no common law support moreover the government's undefined meaningful ties cast is unworkable it would also mean that asylum seekers and potentially millions of other unknown non citizens inside the country could be summarily expelled without any judicial review or without even any administrative review suspension clause as a check on the political branches this court has never before allowed the elimination of judicial review over the legality of deportation the court once again should preserve gave us review as it did during the chinese exclusion era the finality or and throughout the country's history the political branches undoubtedly have an enormous power in the immigration area but the one thing it cannot do and this it has never allowed them to do is remove a check on themselves so i want to address what i what i see as the government's fundamental point now they're opening brief made very broad arguments about having no hevia sort all what they've retreated to now is well you were found inadmissible you were in the country illegally and you're only challenging relief and no finality your work stresses that that's absolutely wrong and let me just give the court two cases one is a cardi decided the year after heckle of the barber said the only review under this regime is that which is required by the constitution mccarty came into court and said yes i'm in the country illegally but i'd like to apply for a discretionary form of relief that will allow me to stay in the country suspension of the port taishan the court reviewed in hey b s found the regulatory violation and sen case back for a new hearing let me give you one other that involves refugees todd v waltman they came to this country seeking a nischelle entry the general admissibility rule was you had to be literate the jewish refugees in that case said but i'm we are refugees therefore we can stay not withstanding being illiterate the court found that that was true on the merits and sent the case back for a new hearing the critical conceptual point of the reason those cases are right and i think the government will concede this when they get up on reply is that the predicate for removing someone is both you have to find that they are removable and you have to find that the  five process was conducted legally and they were legally denied the forms of relief to which they were applying in the c f i process you may not remove a person until the see a five process is concluded the government will i  think has never disputed and will concede again that mr could not be removed based just on the inadmissibility congress has set up a system where you are allowed to apply for asylum withholding and convention against torture relief and i would i would note importantly that those latter two forms of relief are mandatory not to sit on your usual about the situation is that your client really doesn't want to be released in the government makes this point over and over in its brief the government could take him to the airport give him a ticket and say you were released and he could leave that's what he wants and  fundamental point of hey b s is to secure her release from what's claimed to be unlawful executive custody so what is your answer to that right so our client does ultimately want release but what he has asked for is a new hearing which is consistent with the way immigration works in criminal cases in haiti is what this called court called conditional release which is for the benefit of the government he would be thrilled to just be outright released and have the aut vacated what he would then he would be in this country and he would apply for a salon to be he wants to be released in this country so that he can remain in this country he doesn't simply want to be released and therefore it does seem like what he wants is review of his entitle me to remain in this country not simply what he is provides which is released from custody what an absolute you're and he wants review of the removal order which entails custody the custody will be a legal if the removal orders but let me let me offer three points about this the st is we think the government is raising an issue that's already alternately been decided by this court congress began regulating immigration in one thousand nine hundred and five soon thereafter the government made the exact argument that they're making now well this isn't really hey b s we're just restraining if we're coming in the country or restraining you from leaving and the court specifically could not have been more specific in rejecting that argument that's  case in eight hundred and ninety two it was the chin ya case a few years later and even before e q was alone for the next sixty years and finality reviewed those cases and the other point i would make about that is if the government's right that h doesn't even apply to deportation then even lawful permanent residents would not be entitled to hate us because we're restraint point would be the same with respect to them and i don't know what they're saying at all though they're making a very clear distinction between inadmissibility  deportation and relying on land and versus placenta and many other cases so i think that's an overstatement there was so you're absolutely right just connor and i'm simply responding to their independent ardent what they called an independent argument the opening brief and trying to respond to justice alito is question that this is a classic haiti if they do try and get out from under that by then going to a meeting for thais has been using placentia as you're absolutely right but with respect to justice alito is question those cases specifically answer at the exact same arguments government's reliance on it munaf does say that there they were not seeking simply release they wanted humanitarian protection to get out of the out of the country they released was the last thing they wanted and  this case is arguably the same since again the release could be provided under their normal practice to these individuals by taking them out of the country  to another country they don't want that to happen they want to be released into the into the population and munaf made i think pretty clear that that type of humanitarian release was not the purpose of p b s well your honor a few a few points on that i think went off was different because they didn't want to be released where they were arrested which was a rock they came to iraq they didn't want to be released there what they wanted i think as the opinion makes clear is affirmative help from the united states to fly them back to the united states  client simply wants release where he was arrested now that the government says well we can release them in sri lanka but of course that would be denying him relief on the merits it's exactly what he fears and so i think what the government is sort of implying is well you can get out of this just simply give up i mean if that were true contempt cases when fall in their haven i think the the analogy that they press depends upon the fact is that it's conceded that the individual does not have a right to be in the united states right and so know him are not going to be clear about this has an absolute subset of right to be in the united states and that's not what haiti is does the value of the suspension clause of the framers that was not to create rights but to ensure that the grave power of restraint is never used except in accordance with law so if congress were to limit further limit statutory rights maybe even take the momentous step of withdrawing from our refugee treaties then they would be reducing much but this would still lie to make sure that you are not restrained except in accordance with positive law dot's the value for the framers so the government's discussion about he has no absolute right to be here is sort of beside the point for hay because he b s was not designed to create subset of rights it was to ensure that the law was it was followed and so i want to turn to what the government on the on the  question of history you make a point but on the question of precedent in land versus person c and i just want to get your reaction to this you know what sense it is just as o'connor writing for each offices as the court has long held that a illian seeking initial admission to the united states who course a privilege and has no constitutional rights regarding his application so that's a statement of law for each of us to says why is that statement wrong or if it's not wrong why doesn't it control here i think what the court was saying there as we understand it was specific to due process the entire case was about the process there was no question of judicial review or hey b s and i think what the court was doing was distinguishing between different people out of court who had with the process rights that was the context of the senate i think it was on tax the sentences no concentrate on what i think it would be a lot in a case that didn't involve judicial review to take one sentence say were statutory regulatory claims on the merits but the court still reviewed them to make sure that the positive law was being followed it wasn't true in the in the finale era cases that the individuals  once it was determined that they had not been properly detained they did have a right to be in the united states because in those in that era for most of that era much of that era there were not very many restrictions on immigration to the united states and that's the difference between back case in this case but why i don't think so your honor i think for two reasons one is the the inadmissibility relief point i think as i said before there were finality or cases that's your carty case suspension of deportation even though they were concededly removal that's todd view waltman even though the refugees were illiterate and therefore ran admissable they were excused from that because but the other point is that the court threw out the finality are always reviewed whether they fell within the statute or not that's the g t o case e q all of those finality or cases we're looking at whether they fell within the statute there were restrictions i mean obviously there weren't as many as now but the absolute were restrictions and all the cases we  just thirteen through fifteen of our brief are all cases where the court is looking at did they fall within the statute or the regulation in any of those cases and it's it's did the court say anything more that when relief was grante just you are released no your honor i got those cases a stablished a principle in immigration that the government would get the benefit of a new hearing that they didn't simply have to release the person and let them go that there would be a new hearing where there was a legal that's what that's what happened here your honor so we would if we had a new hearing and passed we would be able to apply in a full hearing for asylum or withholding if we wanted he would be allowed to remain in the country the reason we're not asking for full release is not sent it back for a new hearing maybe the person failed and then was deported maybe they passed and were allowed to stay but it would be a new hearing council and just on that particular thing it seemed to me in the discussion not so much that the government taking the chinese cases and so forth was saying but of course you can seek a writ of habeas corpus of course you can now work before the judge on the writ what's your argument the judge says and then i think their point is that he can't argue that there was a factual mistake below now if you read the statute it says he can't argue anything it says all he can say is was there or was there not a notice so that can't be right i don't think but as applied to your case maybe there is some kind of of limitation on the extent to which the judge can look at the factual findings that cetera that's quite different from saying none at all or right if we take that view should we then send it back to the th circuit or was it ok send it back to whatever circuit in order for them to determine whether under this statute how it applies does it mean since nobody can make any argument no matter how outlandishly the service acted let them work out in the st instance whether there's room for limitations on what kinds of arguments you can make how much discretion what what what what do you think so so i think i want to answer all the different things packed into your question i think a rematch and to flesh out our particular claims would not be an appropriate sense of order of appeals and district court didn't unpack our particular claims but i want to address to two other points that you made one is in the martinez brief which was martinez was the companion case to hackley barbour and i would just refer the court to the to the u s g s brief in that case the government was very clear that the suspension clause requires some review at the finality era statutes limited review of the constitutional crime and the government says well we conceded only statutory claims that's even more than i understand them to be conceding now but you also lopped off part of the quote which was anything contrary to law that's on page twenty of their brief the point about the facts i think is a critical one because mr nadler kept saying fact late and so i think that's conspicuous in that he's not saying historical facts he knows we are not challenging the historical facts we don't claim a right to challenge the historical facts our position is no one is that during the finality or contrary to what the government said respectfully they'd chords routinely reviewed mixed questions that's the wrong case where the court said look you have to be meaningfully associated with the communist party and then went on to look extensively at the facts what did he do with the communist bookstore what was the purpose those are the cases on page fifty of our brief mix question but the more fundamental point i want to make is we are ok if the court wants to reserve whether all application a lot of fact is reviewable our our point here is that there hoss to be review at least for coup roast misapplications of the statute because at that point where no one reasonably could conclude then on these historical facts you didn't meet the statutory standard at that point what you're seeing is really a mis under standing of the legal standard what are the concrete issues saying is on these historical facts no asylum officer could reasonably have concluded that he did not meet the low significant possibility standard the very low standard which is a significant possibility of ultimately satisfying  styling standard which in itself is just a one in ten chance that i'm going into the merits now but the reason we say that we're ok with a standard that says agreed to sever clear or no reasonable adjudicator because at that point you are reaching a legal error is because the asylum officer by statute is required to look at the reports on country conditions every report as the amicus brief from the asylum experts in the sri lanka experts point out there is an exact a will people are persecuted in sri lanka a man arrives in a white face and they have ducked the person they blindfold the person they beat and torture him the asylum officer in our case accepted every one of those historical facts but yet still said he didn't even meet the low significant possibility standard that's impossible so if this court were to send it back and say at least where there's a legal error which means the misapplication was so egregious that there had to be a misunderstanding of the legal standard that would satisfy us we would prevail we do believe that the historical cases show application of the full lot of fact which would keenly review always even where they were fact late in but that is not necessary in our case to see what you've just said illustrates how far reaching the argument that you are making is because as i understand it there was nothing in the administrative record now maybe your client didn't understand what was going on but all he said was that people drove up and they beat me and that's it and he said that the officer said are you a member of a political party and he said no so that merits are not up here and if we lose we lose but i do want to point out that there were far more facts that show deeper sites lee fit the pattern and i would also say that just to put a pin in it that the meat is proof show by people from sri lanka or other countries would not either understand what was being asked or want to reveal that it was the government but it was much more specific than that it was men in a van that's again that's what's always used it's called the white van phenomena he repeatedly said he thought he was arrested he was blindfolded that s part of the m o so it was the exact pattern that's why we think we could prevail but ultimately this court just needs to decide is there hey b s review and at least for legal errors where the egregious application was so egregious that there had to be a disavowing the broadness of my understanding of what the the court below said i would just put it as i read the court of appeals decision differently and that there was no review of historical facts and we are not pressing that nor the exercise of discretion we believe makes questions legal claims are constitutional claims but again even if this court wants to narrow it to only egregious egregious application because i'm sure you'll be using the word egregious where that's almost seems like whole cloth it's either mixed or not well your honor i think if you want to say for this purposes of this case only legal claims and reserve whether mix questions i'm simply saying that when it becomes so egre adjudicator could reasonably have concluded on these facts that it met the standard i think at that point it would be a legal error because it would be a misunderstanding because i think what this court has pointed out in the past is you can't just have the adjudicator put boilerplate language for the standard because then you really don't know i mean the someone who's writing an opinion over and over about the same things will get the standard least boilerplate get it right here it's even worse because these are preprinted forms with the standard so you really never actually know if the asylum officer is understanding what these statutory terms mean except through the application and at some point where the application is so either no reasonable judicature clear or reaches i think that does rise to a legal error i want to also in the united states in the st place we are distinguishing them your honor we believe someone outside the country who unless for some reason u s forces were overseas restraining him and that would be a different situation that's not the typical deportation i think if they were outside the country they wouldn't be restrained by us they would have and they were right also be extraterritoriality issues we're simply saying where the person is on u s soil and the body controls  is it that the person at the port of entry is covered or not covered they are covered by hades and the reason is because the ports of entry are typically on u s soil an airport or even a land port would generally be one hundred feet or something into u s soil do you think there's a way of distinguishing that case from us i think historically the court has not for haiti as i think the court could reserve questions about people at ports because our person entered the country historically the court has said hey be a supplies when you're in u soil at ports it's different procedure for procedure the process because that's more context specific and the court has drawn a line for due process purposes at least between people and caring people at the port i think your honor could reserve that question on s for this case because our person did enter the country but it wasn't a port that's a significant expansion it seems to me from someone who's here and anybody can get to a port of entry right well your honor it was so the so that goes to i think the burden i mean people at the port of entry yes it does your honor and so what i would give the court a couple of statistics about that since the th circuit it's issued its ruling and that's basically a year ago now there have been as our count nine thousand five hundred people who failed  and could have filed eight yes under our rule only thirty have one rd of one percent three out of every one thousand the reasons are practical people are removed so quickly there at the border they can't find lawyers even in regular immigration proceedings pro se from an immigration judge to the board of immigration appeals is only three percent it's much harder at the border the other thing that will happen is that district courts will lay down some standards whatever nonprofit are filing hey vs will know we can't challenge historical facts we can't challenge credibility your claim is frivolous we're not going to file it and you get no mileage out of filing because there's no such automatic stay of removal so just by filing doesn't mean you'll get to stay in one time pick up on the chief justice is question and you're saying a non citizen who arrives at a port of entry has never been in the united states not lawfully admitted to the united states nonetheless has a right under the u s constitution to judicial review of the executives decision to say they're not admissible right so let me let me make two points correctly i think it's court yes you're on this sorry that the answer is yes the reason is from the finality or cases that's the very st finality or a case and in fact most of the cases someone at a port of entry that's an issue merrick who comes by boat gets here wants to be admitted the court says no review of facts which is the part of the opinion that the government was quoting doesn't quote the nd part which is  undoubtedly there has to be hay b s for the league for the review of the legality the point i want to point out that the reason i'm using the nine thousand number in the reason the government's using that is because those are the asylum numbers people who come here as a tourist reach a port and sad like to go to disneyland they're not going well i think that the people who come here and don't have asylum claims are those type of claims that are clearly inadmissible are not going to file havey as petitions no one's going to file for them because there's not going to be a ground to stay here that's the reason in asylum cases people file them but it's all it's again as a practical matter it's not very many thirty out of nine thousand five hundred since the th circuit that's the country wide thirty out of nine thousand five hundred the other point i want to make about the burden is the district courts will be able to dispose of these very quickly they don't have to review credibility determinations they're not reviewing historical facts the administrative record is puny in the printed booklets here it's twenty eight pages it's about  seven minute read the only other thing they would look at which is subsume within the record is the few pages of country reports on sri lanka which would have told if someone's abducted in a van and blindfolded that is almost certainly  that that's going to be that easy well i think certainly there's going to be deference but i think your honor even to decide our case we are we're ok with you saying not every mix question where we have a difference a judgment needs to be reversed but it least where it's so clearly understood what was going on maybe dishonest or didn't think he could use circumstantial evidence and therefore may dispositive our client not telling him who persecuted him if that's true that's a pure error of law but either way at some point the egregiousness because i don't think the government gave you a clear answer and even and this goes back to justice priors question to me on exactly what's reviewable the government's talking about leading questions but what if they just didn't give you a hearing at all what if they didn't give you a translator what if they said we're not going to give you a cylon because your religion your race the government is taking that position that even those errors are not reviewable that cannot possibly be the suspension sorry  the the potential for a flood would be of course far greater if this court holds that there is a right to file a hideous seeking review of the negative credible fear of determination this court's decision in cyr referred to review of pure questions of law and constitutional claims in other words statutory interpretation and the finality era cases really fit into that mold even even where they do apply there's no even for determining if school ability congress didn't know the court didn't suggest there was an exception for something that might be characterized as an egregious misapplication or review of the facts we're still going to my basic question to you earlier putting aside his claim let's talk about a pure legal claim they didn't hold any interview with me at all i'm sorry i didn't hold an interview with me at all limited in this context again for credible specifically with respect to credible fear determinations there's no common law precedent for this there's no finality era precedent for this and in that context congress is judgment should count for something now and i also want to point out that as i understand respondents claim to the court count for something hasn't it this court has not ruled it has never has has never been since court has never said that and he went off i'm sorry did you answer mr nadler let me finish my gosh i'm sorry we have the great rift it was there to ensure that the executive acts according to the law what's left if you tell and four where a determination about whether somebody should return to another country because of conditions there is simply not returning he was there the question was a legal one which was whether or not  he should be turned over by the american forces or not the court said even if he should have been we're not going to step in in this situation but the but the court drew on the rule of none inquiry which applies in the extradition context which is about sending someone out from the united states to another country i want to make another point when respondent talks about review for agree just aarons i think he's talking about bringing in stuff that is outside the administrative record and trying to demonstrate to the court that if only the review at the asylum officer of the i j a had looked at this it would have reached a different conclusion that and that goes far beyond even traditional administrative review but the administrative proceedings in this case for example  asylum officers record are just notes they're not a verbatim transcript they are there to assist the immigration judge in this self contained internal review of whether someone has made even the showing necessary for a threshold credible fear of screening they are not designed for judicial review and the suggestion that there would be judicial review and habeas corpus unprecedented under this court's decisions or the common law would would require effectively to change the administrative system as well but congress determined that the that the three tier screening that it provided and limited judicial review is necessary it's essential to get control of the nation's borders case is submitted