in court right he had his day in the immigration court but he was reputed in fact a waiver of appeal because the immigration judges in san francisco and san diego never informed him that he had a fifth amendment right to a judicial determination of the non frivolous claim of your citizenship and never informed him that by waving his appellate rights you would be relinquishing his when he was citizenship because that determination would become final that is what the court held in rivera and the rather the immigration act and it's very immigration ceremonies every day of the week in courtrooms all across the country for this very purpose to have the public oath given at minister and for the alien to public would be completely unavailable for him for several reasons first of all motions to reopen are only available for somebody to allege and you thought they were not available during the prior removal proceeding his citizenship claims were was a set of facts that was available to him during frivolous claim of citizenship and that by waiving his appeal he would actually be relinquishing his citizenship plan because in fact the immigration judges which from mission at that point would become final also the waiver of appeal and th be viewed in the context of the entire hearing on july fourteenth two thousand and poor what happened at that hearing is that the immigration judge again denied that he has the citizenship claim when real evidence for him except for cat and even mr yasu wanted to pursue cat believed he had to know that that would not give him a grant of lawful status in the united states that i could be taken away from him and any time he could remain in he says at one time well i never got my citizenship so when you said something about citizenship what do you mean then he stumbles all over the city ethiopia you're a tree a business and he points out that he never quite got there so then you get into the removal thing and then the judge says you can appeal my decision to the board of immigration appeals which is like a higher court do you understand sir so why doesn't that give him the opportunity to pursue his citizenship claim in some respect to the minute for a bottle you're welcome every issue in this case except arguably his claim that he's a united states citizen all these claims about what happened before the immigration judge there is no exception to the apartment that you appeal those claims to the board and he did so the only issue in this case she never heard of either you know because i didn't expect the court to engage in a discussion about whether the claim was colorable or not we assume a lot if you have the case is the if you didn't expect us to engage in this well because i looked at the issues in this case the determination was i understand but i did not expect to address this argument in our place of cases if you didn't expect to address that you would not have the case well i researched the issue before and when preparing the brief and i was aware of this case law but it determination was made attorney general and that is four to seven f third thirteen fifty two thousand and five to your done counsel we have a sheet that you need to fill out that i will do that and i apologize am only bringing this up in response to those courts both consider the exact situation in this case an oath was signed during the same process for the application was approved neither alien then attended  immigration officer when the application is approved is not sufficient relying upon the plain language of fourteen forty eight and so those two cases are the ones th proceedings then you can take advantage of fifty three well what we think he has to do under fifteen zero three is obtain an independent determination that he is not a citizen and then he can bring that under fifteen or three independent for determining whether or not this is and should not just a possibility to try to convince him authority or tribunals that you should be able to raise this issue and that's why the motion to reopen is problematic because it's just a shot not necessarily a guarantee form which is what we contemplate well i would say that before he he has an attempt at either route before saying that neither one is a guaranteed form i would suggest that both should be attempted before  or not and that i've started off by saying we believe all of those claims have been waived rivera only has to do with the actual non frivolous claim to citizenship everything that have all the procedural arguments about what make it in our brief we didn't go that far because two courts decided to course decided the issue after having a briefing on the issue and we felt to be going a little far to say it's not