two day barring review of expedited removal proceedings do we have jurisdiction to review your position and if so why i think you guys have jurisdiction to review this just because  we're not appealing i we're not asking to review the denial of the credible fear decision just a motion to reopen do you concede then or do you think just and consequently she was ordered removed with a chance to being heard but then to do that we have to look at what happened because that if there's a process that set out that when people if that you know what happens then they go to if they if they state that they have a fear then in it so an immigration judge looks at it and then it's i mean  an officer looks at an asylum officer looks at it and then it's reviewed by an immigration judge and then it specifically says you can't look at that anymore and so what you're saying is well i don't really think that the hearing was done well so then we have to look at the hearing to see if the hearing was done well so we're reviewing what you said we can't review i understand that that's yeah it's just if sometimes it's are you trying to go through the back door because you can't come to the front door we there'd be another motion to reopen after that i don't think so the thing is that if the b i would have if that if the immigration judge when he denied the motion to reopen if he would have explained like process but i'm also concerned about monday morning quarterbacking and being afraid of i j so here that i asked about the other petitioner and whether she would have a different story or anything else to say right i think the record shows us that yes he asked the husband but i don't he didn't ask her and i believe like she's an adult and she should be able to speak for herself like she's not a minor and that her husband would have had something different is there something else that immigration court then was deprived of lowing or considering well i think well we'll actually never know why she didn't have a chance to testify in front of judge d you now come asking to reopen saying i don't know what she would have said or that's not much i mean reopened for what i mean without us knowing that we have jurisdiction understand but in the same thing she was order rules and we think that she was deprived of the due process when she wasn't allowed to testify in front of a judge nobody asked her to come back in or anything i don't understand that this is a problem i mean looking of this from the outside i would like her to have been there so that she could have you know i'm sure do you have any other so i think at its court at its core we have a person that was unable to have a chance to speak to be heard and was consequently order removed without a fair chance to and you could raise you could they could apply for asylum without sticky nando can't they i mean you could they could initiate an asylum application from where they are right well the thing is that the they went to the officer first they got deny crew fear and then they went to the judge and they were ordered all right by god i mean there's nothing to say so there's nothing to say that you couldn't file an application for them if you think you can do a better job well and initiate that they just wouldn't be here they don't get to be here yes just mind right now i think we're way past that one year deadline to apply for asylum ok this court has so held in two prior cases that are on all fours with this case garcia to david cone and pena we have recognized our own jurisdiction to review denials of motions three open this doesn't make a difference that petitioners are seeking review of the well of motion to reopen and not review of the underlying credible fair terminations here it's a distinction without a difference credible fear serves a very important efficiency purpose and this court no the distinction made in thirsty jim was distinguishing garcia during cone was that as your honor noted there c g m was inside the united states versus someone applying for admission at the border no that's a very i believe actually they did try to sneak in a fur member correctly but you can't have it both ways but they didn't make in this ng the case because they presented themselves at the border they didn't make it across they they attempted to enter the united states that we would request the opportunity to provide supplemental briefing to properly break this down given that it hasn't been been addressed here based on that that factual distinction which is how the court this court distinguished garcia their income was on that distinction was that thirty jim was actually in the united states versus the other income was at the border thank you in my own right and understanding that if in fact this were instead of someone coming in for the first time and subject to expect it removed and someone had been room moved previously and this was no reinstatement it would be i believe that is garcia their income and i think let's make it more process a  if it's a reinstated non expedited removal order yes there is review of the reasonable here determination but this is specifically exempted by statute as as your honor noted at the outset the language is clear that this court has no jurisdiction except for extremely limited and extremely limited three piece inquiry which is simply doesn't apply here and i use a motion to reopen it's a distinction without difference why is that so because i can imagine that someone comes in they lose on the credible fear and then for one reason or another something was missed and it wasn't their fault it's apparent that the j really missed something and we make a motion to reopen we're not we're not asking that the decision of the i j a on the merits be revisited or reviewed by us we're only asking reopened so you can look at what you didn't see before was what is why why is that a distinction without a difference there's two parts that first again the statute is very clear as to what the court can review if it's a systemic systematic challenge to the credible fair process that's an entirely separate review what your honour's describing is not yes not getting at the merits of whether or not they have been actual credible fair but whether or not the process complied with due process will not given that a which is the idea that there is no available review or that there at the idea that there might be no available review for what would be a gross miscarriage of justice that phrase wasn't used but it looks like the court was going there if that were the case that the court and then you're kind of left that option open and that maybe might be presented in their propre case that's not what we have here but perhaps in that case if the court were to go there again that would be something we would need to separately brief and address whether that's possible whether or not that would survive given the clear language of the statute and this court's precedents that the court simply lacks jurisdiction over the credible fair process if there is that kind of clear error again the court runs into the statute that's the statute that congress has been explicit that the court lecture a section over pretty much anything relating to credible fear other than these these questions are committed entirely to the discretion of the agency but we hear motions to reopen and we say wait it's abuse is question to not have considered yes yes i think your honor is describing maybe like a wants to get beyond what the statute permits that's getting into a due process question was was due process denied here getting into the actual process itself did it comply and as the court was discussing i believe it is as judge fletcher was asking to reopen for what you know we have to look at the particular circumstances of this case for what for what reason would the court do something exceptional here when there is no this case is really ass what about as as we've just a couple of now have have mentioned she was asked to step out there was an inquiry which she have any thing else to say we still aren't told what was left out of the equation but since you do have four minutes left on the clock  wondering if you talk about hypothetical what is your position still that we would not have jurisdiction to even direct that agency take another run at it yes because i mean i take it it's your position that congress decided what process is going to happen here and it said you're going to have you're going to talk to an asylum officer and then you're going to have it reviewed by an i j and that's it right and under this newer authority th lot of right there with respect to the actual process here in terms of her not the wife not testifying again we don't know what she what more she would have offered a motion to reopen in this circumstance typically would offer new evidence of some kind peter or the wife to say oh no you know right now this one doesn't smell like that on the other hand it is possible that the wife would have had a different story it's possible but the point of all this to bring it all back together is that congress limited what this court can do to look at all of this because that's the point of the expedited removal incredible fair process it's to increase the efficiency of the system this court has upheld the credible fear an expedited removal removal system on that basis agency needs this to be able to handle the incredible volume of cases as this court has handled three immigration cases today and those thousands a year just just like our office does this is an important element of the system that has been found to be you save some time thank you you didn't mention the latest night circuit case are you familiar with that now that's  what i can say about you wouldn't be able to say but i think it has any impact on your claims you know ok but i'll be able to do supplemental beefing if you just requires well it really in terms of when it happens before you come to court and it's filed you should that something that you should be prepared to talk about something if it i'm we don't need i don't think we need supplemental briefing thank you in terms we feel that this proceedings were fundamentally unfair during that hearing only the elite respondent was allowed to testify not just wife and she was asked to leave the courtroom and she was consequently older