apparently contacted your client and asked him to step outside is that right yesterday and this was while they were conducting an investigation of somebody else named mark or something like that that's correct you are your client then went outside with his agent there were three other agents and now your client is confronted by four agents is that right that's correct and then it had your shirt by was not under arrest not handcuffed or anything like that that's correct your honor i ask a few questions and then the agent ask your client what's your social security even if this was appropriate you're still trying to terminate the proceedings and generally it's black letter law than an illegal arrest even an illegal arrest there's not a prior a court or a tribunals or jurisdiction so even if so they didn't just grab him right there on the spot and crawl out of the country he then went through a whole process and proceeded yes and it was that proceeding that the belle of the product of her moving him from the country and why did they grab him i mean because they needed him they need in securing him this is a witness i think that was the basis for the question well well that was the reason that they were talking to him in the patio that's why i'm like that there's some question about that that will but the question that it's focusing on here is that is why did they ask in a social security number is part of their question and if that doesn't seem to be any reason for that other than the fact that they hold an interest in him well as i say i'm not sure that that's the only inference that you can  thirteen should be suppressed or not let's follow that on the i two thirteen the encounter that we're talking about as i read the record was on may twenty three is that correct yes your honor two thousand and one and when was the i two one three form prepared i understand that was may thirty that's correct i was seven days later yes and tell us the circumstances under which the i two one three was prepared  they felt that you know that was necessary and they asked to have the documents return yes if you were going to try to hold the government to some promise there would have had to have been an express promise that he relied on that they would never do anything against him right after and there was no such no they didn't make any prom my first question is we've just been told that the privacy act although not referred to in the government's brief at all which i don't find helpful and doesn't apply to your client only to u s citizens and lawful permanent residents and if we look at that i asked you early on what's the prohibition and you told me the privacy act and i hear you concede in the privacy act doesn't cover your client but the problem of the jury that your client that's not covered by the privacy act if you look at the pla the fact they're obligated to follow the law both under the privacy act and also because they didn't know that he wasn't covered by the act they had the fall of the act even though he wasn't covered by it because they didn't know that he was whether or not he was undocumented so that's basically the original catch twenty two they should have asked him are you covered by the privacy act and the words no no i mean they should have asked him are you a lawful permanent resident or citizen in the united states not like the courts that you know everything