arrest and detention and go to the heart of response obligations in this matter because they demonstrate the arbitrary and capricious manner in which the respondents attempted to deprive mr touchett his liberty interest in pursuing relief an athlete  and it was two thousand when i'm not really sure when he received a voluntary departure a voluntary move was not right and then he was given thirty days to effect rate that that didn't happen in the voluntary notice that at any point in time following that conversion he has sent you to remove a no for this real fairness argument then i get that he's going to families they have for a long time but put the fairness and equity argument aside for a moment just in terms of pure supervision for ten years since two thousand and as a result he was operating under a situation where he was attending regular check ins and you know there is no dispute that he attended every single one who checked in with ice and under those circumstances  ice he was asked to check in under that order of supervision and there is some obligation to provide some notice that they weren't going to simply detain him at that check in which he had intended for ten years and so he was operating under permission from the government to live in the united states despite the fact he had a fine order and the regulations that the government promulgated that govern that were of supervision require some type of notice sorry but again isn't there some underlying implicit maybe constructive knowledge of can that you can be detained any time you go into the report and any one of those monthly reporting sessions you they're sort of you know that the nd point is the fact that there was a provisional waiver process that he was in the midst of pursuing so in this case mr todd he was in the process of pursuing a process which deportation would fundamentally and completely deprive him  and in this case by not providing him notice by not providing him the opportunity to put his inferiors in order by not providing the opportunity to have the ability to contest that replication of order supervision the ultimate  the detention and then the partition he was not provided the ability to gather his he was not provided the ability to gather his affairs in order both for his family but also in order to can cast the order of underlying reason why the government's or his removal at the time that he did did he comply with all regulations for example so i'm not sure that far as we know there is absolutely no explanation that he has that explanation for his removal at the time that he was detained other than the fact that he was subject to the final order of a nubile and that is the exact precise factor a characteristic that makes an what is that regulation that you're referring to the regulation to deprive that that you mentioned that the government violated because there's too regulations that are at issue here the st is the regulation  leslie we have identified a situation where the government is not abiding by the regulations so the government here has that city exclusive jurisdiction to make decisions over these applications and to offer these applications in the u the final order of removal is invalid and that as a result of very severe in fact of this so the immigration proceedings to be reopened the issue here is that regardless of whether or not the final order removal is valid or in the argument that the detention and removal of our client is unlawful is that by taking him outside of the united states deprive him of the ability to pursue these provisional waiver process applications that deprive him of the ability to file and i think so why because the regulations were specifically amended when creating to state that nobody can apply for them outside of the united states so this isn't a situation where he's saying i'd like to stay in the united states simply so i can pursue my my immigration proceeding explicitly by the supreme court it was explicit that case was fundamentally different on the facts we had a situation where a man had just walked over the border he had entered for twenty five yards and in this case this man had been in the walk through the analysis in that that that subsection referring to that stat is referring to a separate aspect of the regulations that say that essentially mean this doesn't create a lawful status in the united states so it's a a way of  ting that this is not an ability to change your status it is not actually say that this doesn't constitute a stay of removal authorized by the secretary and again at the helm of this court pointed out the responses knew how to create that that type of restriction when they wanted to another point that's important to think about here is the fact that in the regulations that are discussed that are there is no other language anywhere else that says that this doesn't constitute a state of removal and so the only other way that the district court and the government have attempted to import that into regulations that do not state is by pointing to the relevant and specifically related to an individual who cannot pursue this process outside outside of the united states and in those regulations the twenty six thousand explanation of the regulations explaining that they admitted  regulation specifically to make clear that jurisdiction to both offer and govern and adjudicated applications of death in the u s c i s so i think it's important to make sure we read the regulations as they're actually written and read to twelve to twelve has been denied you're asking us to keep alive a space for him to complete a three step process when he's been picked out at step two so you want to right to go back and redo this whole process provide additional briefing on this we just got the actual denial last friday i think would be the same day that we alerted the court to that denial that we're happy to provide additional briefing on the effect of this but our point is you know importantly that denial just as a matter of fact was on the basis of the fact that he had a final order removal and had stayed in the united states to the exact basis again which makes an eligible to file and i think so one day which was created for individuals like i mean is the  jurisdiction seems like it's beyond our jurisdiction to be trying to rectify something where the root problem you're pointing to or the root obstacle is not all properly before the nd circuit what why should we be intervening here at all the court didn't have jurisdiction to say that it didn't help at least as a matter comedy should he perhaps all right i mean right so i understand there is a there there have been cases that have distinguished between the jurisdiction final order and it was at issue here and also whether or not the appeal of the i c twelve did i'll grant to the issue there is whether or not mr tutt do eligible for should be given that i can twelve it is not whether he should be allowed to stay in the lawful removal order after he failed to depart the united states seventeen years ago and has waited years to pursue the motion to reopen and the provisional waiver a lawful presence waiver as as this court has in question  issues present in this case the st is that there is no judicial review of the discretionary decision to execute a removal order at this point that's correct your honor the nd is that the a p a cannot be used  noted during questioning petitioner's motion to reopen claims are barred by top fifty to a five and b nine which can all the questions of law and facts to the court of appeals through the p s r process and finally  removal order require us to shield from review decisions about detention or phone calls which help us to understand how you can win without shielding a large swaths of this you wouldn't you know it takes three days ago to put him on the plane are those three days there's some minimum period that's inherently bound up in a in an ordinary removal like what what should be treated is covered by that exception moment sure are just there it would basically just require a magic words test which would be that any quote any claim could be just brief framed as a legal question and as to whether or not i've had the legal authority to execute the removal order and the nd way to answer that your honor reopened he has an outstanding removal order that maybe acts now as you know as this court noted during my my colleague's time is that all those questions are are supposed to be channeled through the p f are processed into the actually respectfully disagrees with that what is wrong with the court waiting to see whether or not your own agency will agree with mr it's not a zoo and reversed a decision a step to help me understand it than just the fact of litigation posture what is and he has the government in that proceeding has filed and has not opposed say so he's already received that really so there's nothing there isn't the government's position here is that there's no jurisdiction to do any because the p f are processed and the question about equitable tolling is properly before argued that he would be deprived of the opportunity to seek a provisional waiver if he was removed that's actually not the case your honor this year can still see a waiver of inadmissibility from overseas so he could file in the his to twelve which is him but i think you're right that the the point here is that the nd circuit could completely open up the entire case to think that the facts are extraordinary strong in mr t s came into right also that the difference between today and you know a few months from now two months from now robert long it takes that process to be finished that sort of there's not a meaningful difference between that time and i think that it makes them to wait for those two processes to be done at the very least when you feel process up to be done there's no indication that mr towser was in any way causing harm to anyone waiting and that extra couple of months is just a hop in the bucket in comparison to the ten years the government waited to attempt to deport him after his and your firm you could you please take that back to whomever at the firm is the one who's in charge of making the kinds of decisions in terms of does not represent somebody thank you very much thank you thank you both for your position is you can't pursue this relief from overseas if you can pursue it you know with that whatever due process already has be satisfied by being able to file the form from