expressly to find the key term order of removal it is an order that finds an individual deportable or orders deportation a cat order does neither and the government does not disagree cat relief is temporary a political only to the country where an individual is likely to be tortured or killed if cat relief is granted the removal order remains enforceable as the government says quote a grant of withholding or deferral leaves the final order of removal undisturbed when congress enact a to see it also stripped jurisdiction of expedited removal orders this is section two a reprint in the government's brief it page for a it bars disha review of quote any individual determination or any other cause or claim arising from or relating to the implementation or operation and quote of an expedited order of removal that broader language expanded jurisdiction stripping be on the removal order itself but congress did not use that broader language in to see if none of this carries the day and if some ambiguity remains the presumption in favor of judicial review of administrative agency action would do the work judicial review of administrative agencies is an essential part of the constitution separation of powers congress designed cat relief to be available when all else is stripped away congress knowingly rendered those with criminal convictions eligible for protection from likely torture or death its plain terms to see does not bar review of a cat claim ultimately the cat claim does not qualify as an order of removal again the government doesn't contend that it fits within the clear statutory definition and i don't think it can because the cat relief comes temporally after in the proceedings the order of removal is ent to see does not apply so i agree there is deference to the b i a but deference doesn't mean there is no judicial review it just is the appropriate deferential standard that would apply across the board of judicial review of administrative agency fact find do you agree that your cat claim is covered by the so called super clause so i think there is an open question on earth a zipper clause extends here footnote to jennings suggests that the zipper clause might not apply in context of asylum and i think this would would be similarly qualified but i'm willing to assume for a moment even if the court were to think that the zipper clause of the nine applies to the cat claim i don't think that's any problem for our position i think the zipper clause can be thought of doing to potentially different things the st thing it can do is consistent with other provisions both in foreign aid for underscore that the various limitations of section  dollars can be said to apply that's one thing well what about the language of the super clause and the comparison of the language of the zipper clause with the language of the criminal alien bar the super clause says that all questions of law in fact arising from an action taken or proceeding brought to remove an alien from the united states of the subject or shall be available on this is what may be important only and judicial review of a final order under this section so if you are can't claim is covered by the super clause that claim can be reviewed only in judicial review of a final order under this section and the criminal alien bar says that no court has jurisdiction to review any final order of removal so if you put those two things together why isn't the conclusion that the criminal alien bar prohibits review of your can't claim so two things about that your honor let me say at the beginning this is not an argument the government advances of course so this is not an argument the government has endorsed i think that's for good reason so two points one to say that this is part of the review removal is not problematic for us we don't resist the conclusion that to see applies the question is what work does to see do you want to see applies and unpack that for a moment my nd point however is that a four is later in time than broader provision in a four to ensure standalone jurors wellman all this is very complicated but i don't know that answers the question about what the pretty clear meaning of the statutory language is i mean this is because to me you l tell me this is statutes are very complicated so maybe i don't understand how they fit together but the super clause seems to me the embodiment of the same sort of rule that applies in ordinary civil litigation with respect to the review of a final decision of the of the district court so that you take an appeal from the final decision of the district court but that permits review of everything else leading up to the final decision and the super clause seems to do the same thing it order of removal so they have the title against consolidation of questions for judicial review and i agree with your honor that when the cat claim occurs in situ circumstances where there is a final order of removal if the nine applies it has the operation it's the same effect as a foreign far to say those two things occur together what happens is you get review of the final order of removal to the extent that review is allowed you also though independently then have review of the cat claim and i think the critical question is what worked is to see due to see bars courts from engaging in the affirmative act of reviewing the final order of removal the key textual question here is when to see bars courts from engaging in that conduct what to conduct it to see bars courts from doing it's reviewing the final  nothing else not all of the preliminary decisions all the earlier decisions that lead to the final order of removal i think the merger principle this court identified and shot is the correct one which is to say anything on which the final order of removal is contingent would appropriately merge into that and be governed by to see so all of those preliminary things are on a references would be subject to to see the ultimate question is a practical one is is the nature of the argument in the petition for review is it one that challenges the validity of the final order of removal if the answer to that question is yes it challenges the validity of the final order of removal we agree to see applies in those circumstances the cat order however does not challenge the validity of the final order  government underscores that point they say you win your cat claim the final order of removals undisturbed that's because it's relief that is of only to one country the country that's identified in the cat order it's relief that's temporary it can be undone  later in time if for example country conditions change and rd the government says because the order the final order of removal remains presently effective they can continue to detain individuals who've been granted cat relief on the basis of the underlying order of that is tethered into a want it couples together review of the final order of removal with the petition for review of the cat claim that though led to a problem where if there couldn't be to additional review of the final order of removal in what i would call a  reference which led to hate issues and the text of a four provides the petition for review and let me say off the bat there is some awkward language in here but i think i'll explain why it's not so awkward in context a force says a petition requirements in b had already been inactive by riera so what congress did in eighty four which came later in time vice via referencing the section i think it's fairly read to say we are putting a four in later and we're incorporating saying you can't get around the venue provisions or timeliness provisions or standard of review provisions by incorporating all of the requirements of the section and again my point there is sort of moment ago i don't resist that we could say to see generally could be thought to apply the question is when it applies to a petition order at least temporarily invalidate the order of removal as to a particular country no you're honest in common parlance i don't think it does because it remains affective and if the cat orders is removed the individual can still be sent to that country but to get technical about what the definition requires under a forty seven dollars it's either the finding of an individual being deportable or being ordered deported those are both binary determinations either the individual is or found they say quote withholding does not address whether an alien is ordered removed it's the government's position that whether an alien is ordered removed that binary determination is made by the final order of removal not the  what two things here seem to be difficult for you i'm not sure you'll explain why they're not in one thousand three hundred and twenty one which is rather like the zipper clause it says you can't review a cat decision except as part of the review of a final order of removal and then in the two provisions a four in a five it says continuously of the review in accordance with this section now in accordance with this section in respect to as you know i mean in respect to orders of removal means you can review facts we have the mix question in front of us and not you cannot review facts for sure and and so what i can you review here particularly when it's said earlier and later in the zipper clause you have you can only review this except as part of the review of the final order removal will have a fact argument to the judge made a mistake of the fact you know you can't get that review with just with far the except for as part of the review of what that says is the way that you get review of the cat claims you have review of the final order of removal you have that that's the a who wins will fifty to petition and as part of that review you have review of the cat claim what that doesn't say is that the cat claim itself is the final order of removal all that does is like being on the zipper clause consolidates these two different sorts of arguments into the same vehicle into the same petition for there's no judicial review of that it applies in this circumstance it just doesn't do anything because there's nothing discretionary about this determination that's the same argument we make with respect to to see we don't resist saying that it applies it just doesn't do anything to the part of courts entertaining actions in the district courts it did not want to two layers of review it wanted these matters going to the courts of appeals in order to ensure that there was not a jurisdictional gap that's where congress created a four  language of a four it does have the sole an excuse of language but a four is written in just the same terms as a one a one is the provision that the government points to as providing judicial review over the final order of removal the way the language the anyone not there is a final order for move all answered if somebody wins cancellation of removal relief that means there simply is no final order of removal and that fits within the definition of a forty seven in the denial of cancellation of removal yes your honor i'm sure the factual components of that is part of the final order of removal that is all well within because if somebody challenges the denial of cancellation of removal or relief or for those who still have to twelve see relief eligible any of those things the upshot of though their argument is the final order of removal that was entered against me should be vacated that's how how about statutory withholding which is much more comparable to the withholding at issue here i do think statutory withholding is the one thing in addition to cap claims that probably are rules weaves within the language is less clear there there's not the a for the a five argument it's not before the court but i do think the logic of argument the only thing in addition to cat relief i think it would so what work does a four in a five do  congress a moment ago in the real id act sought to ensure that all of the review of all of these different issues would go straight to the courts of appeals that's why congress created both a four and a five it created two separate independent provisions does why does it necessarily in compas statutory withholding i'm not sure either of those arguments by their plaintext of encompass statutory withholding your honor i think there is potentially a gap i think this is just a little point b nine the zipper clause w tie in an argument about statutory withholding into the review of the final order from i agree with you that everything comes up under your interpretation everything comes up to the court that's what the super course is supposed to do what you're saying however is that because of the definition of what order removal is that if it doesn't affect the actual order that's not part of the factual review it's not barred that's right you're on r r r ultimate position  straightforward one of if the claim of the petition for review challenges the validity of the final order of removal if it is and that is most things that are in sections like cancellation approval things like that affect that and yes you are the only things that i'm aware of that do not fall they are not swept within four provides independent jurisdiction or see for provides independent jurisdiction how would it insists for statutory withholding so similar situations where it doesn't come up with the order removing i think statutory withholding is more similar is less likely to come up in an independent circumstance than cat so i'm not sure that those are going to arise as for why and that's what i don't understand well i think the cat as being the final backstop is the sort of claim that is often seen more independently acknowledge your honor though that in that that narrow range of cases about statutory withholding i agree that a four doesn't apply i do think that there is not a clear answer on where statutory withholding the jurisdiction falls i think though it falls with most likely within be nign because that is an order that then would be related to the proceedings and would be swept into gether so i think benign would would do the work there i think ultimately though this has to be understood against the backdrop presumptions here one is that there is a presumption in favor of judicial review and nd if there was no judicial review for the withholding context of the statutes were understood that way there would then be the suspension clause problem that would allow independent standalone hey b s actions to challenge the nile of the withholding of the  holding that the criminal alien bar applies at all in this case since the ground for removal in this case is twelve two hundred and seventy eight thousand two hundred and eighty one right not  so if they're wrong on that there's really no reason for us to get to this other issue and the nd part of that question is although they have said they have held that the criminal there's doesn't is not obstacle to the question presented i do think it is within the court's discretion if it wishes to find plane error or to address the one thousand two hundred and twenty seven question in the alternative of the sign the question presented that's of course within the court's discretion but by that it's not an issue that we've presented circuit takes a different approach it also agrees that a single crime moral turpitude is not triggered and it focuses instead on the text of to see because when you look at the back and portion of the text of to see the language is a bit unclear but it references that there are multiple crimes of moral in that to see which is tying into the roman to two portion of the one thousand two hundred and twenty seven dollars which says there has to be two or more crimes so i think those are both in the th and the th circuit have provided two independent grounds for arriving at the government's position which we agree with that to see should apply for the separate reason when it's a single crime you address the government's reliance on foley and why that decision doesn't carry forward a few things about for your honor st we think the holding in floaty is completely consistent with our position  the language and throaty so the only issue in language authority where it does sweep more broadly congress defined that the key term order of deportation after foti and it defined it in a way that's completely consistent with holding but is not consistent with photos broader language that absolutely anything that occurs in a removal proceeding falls within the order of deportation if we were with that one sentence and foti that reads more broadly it could be a problem but that's not the case as congress specifically defined the key term after foti and that statutory definition is necessarily what is going to govern here in foti the court said we have to interpret what's an ambiguous term and we're going to resort to policy knowing that there are multiple possible interpretations here there's no resort to that sort of policy sense because congress has filled the gap but even if we look to that underlying policy there the policy was ensuring that there would be consolidation in one court so you would have some actions in the district court and some in the courts of appeals congress has taken care of that policy issue and now everything goes to the courts of appeals and the final point about foti is forty was just picking where judicial review was going to be not whether or not judicial review would be fully stripped this is a case in which jurisdiction is whether or not there is article three jurisdiction at all and that thank you thank you counsel rests on the premise that the denial of a cat claim is not the same thing as an order from google but the denial of a cat claim is an integral part of the removal order for purposes of judicial review that is the lesson of foodie and  is the understanding of the statutory scheme that congress incorporated in the one thousand two hundred and fifty two and as i just explained that's precisely how far it describes your view of cat claims petitioner's argument is also self defeating as we explain in our persecution rather than a fear of torture everything that petitioner says about what makes cat claims what makes a cat claim distinct from an order of removal could equally be said for statutory withholding claims and yet we know statutory withholding claims are reviewable as part of the final order removal else old at the conclusion of proceedings two questions taken whatever or you water ignore them both st what do we do with the fact that the government is repeatedly represented that a cat order is not a final order of removal and that a final order of removal remains affective whatever happens to the category so that's one number two can't something be part of a proceeding and yet be different from the twelve claims can come in one proceeding right and we often have compulsory counterclaims for example and why couldn't congress one a system in which for  purposes two distinct questions were presented to the court at the same time without indicating that they are the same issue just as horses if i may take your nd question st we think the language of far is quite specifically identifies how congress understood cackling to be reviewable in this context the relevant language is reproduced at page eighteen a of the government's brief and as i quoted earlier congress specified that cap claims would be reviewable only as part of a review of the removal not as a separate proceeding that would occur at the same time as a review of the i understand exactly it's not a separate proceeding but that doesn't necessarily mean it's the same thing as a final  agree with that but ok you agree that that one can have two distinct things in a single proceeding section one thousand two hundred and fifty two prescribe a mechanism whereby aliens can see judicial review of what occurred in the removal proceedings by petitioning for review of the final order that is entered at the end of those proceedings sense this court's decision in foti the uniform understanding of how judicial review works in this context is that when the alien petitions her view of that final order which concludes the administrative cat protection once the government concedes as i think it must write that that cat order is distinct from is not the same thing as a final order of removal why isn't that seriously problematic turning to the st question i asked  course of litigation district court the district court may make a variety of decisions that culminate any final decision the final decision under the statutory provision for view of a final decision for the district court has been universally understood that review of the final decision also encompasses review of the various decisions made earlier in the course of the district or can i ask you a merge into the final decision it's it's a similar scheme here i mean i think that's very different all of those decisions are ones leading up to the final decision and the final decision is contingent on them by the government's own practice and procedures the cat scheme does not have that relationship to the final order i mean every time you issue a final order or it it there is the final order and when the cat question comes up the government says this does not affect the final order which continues to be in effect be removed to lebanon because he fears that he would be tortured there if you were to succeed on his cat claim the order existing order that he be removed to live in and could not be executed when there is one or it is just is for removal from this country and what the cat claim does is essentially to put a kind of external constraint on how to implement that order but the order as the government repeatedly says when it does this remains in effect the person  is ordered to leave this country well respectfully just as giving the order is more specific than that and in fact the implementing regulations require that the country of removal be designated in the order and if you look at page forty seven dollars a of the petition in appendix there's an example of what these orders look like and you will find that it's here the order specified that respondent meaning the petitioner in this court be removed from the united states to levon on what is why this knowledge was that if you would say it's just like a final order of a district court coming up review by we've had a lot of those dollars come to review in the court of appeals but doesn't mean you applied the same standard for all of them if it's a witness can't complain there is credibility standard that's more almost entirely up to the district judge if it's a fact finding it's another thing if it's an application of law it's another thing so it's part of the review of the final order but here the question is should they review facts and that's a different section which says you can't review facts in the final order and what they say to that is look if congress wanted all these things to apply it wouldn't have written two separate four and five they wouldn't have written two separate provisions that's a pretty good argument and you have not a bad argument on the on the language up so into this breach steps the presumption in favor of review ability now there we are and what you what you have to i would like to hear what you have to say about that aliens nd independently of that we don't think that presumption of in favor of judicial review can do any work in this case for the following reason that is specific to this particular case the term the court is being asked to interpret here is the term final orders  that appears in both a to see which the the limitation on final order of review and also in a one which is the provision that affirmatively authorizes judicial review and so by narrowing construction of the term final order for move al sort of give with one hand and take with the other different from what i've seen ten thousand times in a court of appeals we are reviewing a piece of paper called a judgment and it is the order of that judgment that we review but when we review it we have like ten different standards that you apply to different aspects depending on what the argument is a determination that the united states has made is there any impediment and this this is very limited he can be deported anyplace else in the world just not to lebanon is there an impediment to to some other country that no there is not currently and adamant that the immigration and nationality act itself specifies the other countries to which may be removed there is an ordering in the statute about which alternative going to be seriously disputed because it will be convictions for prior offenses and you've gotten judicial process with respect to those state convictions usually and that was part of the center abraham's analysis back when this was put in with respect to a cat claim however the factual components will not have been previously litigated and indeed will be very important to the cat claims so why would congress have wanted to preclude judicial review of those highly important factual components of a cat claim just as cavanagh the same could be said with respect to an ailing claims for asylum or to cases that we congress don't want judicial review even the deferential judicial review the justice ginsburg identified we don't even want that of the factual components of the cat claim of the entire final order which encompasses things like well that is just an exhibit question of whether that encompasses just score such as the cat claim but there's nothing specific to say as to cat claims and this doesn't defeat your argument but it is a problem there's nothing specific as the cat clients that say we congress don't want any judicial review of the factual components of cat claims which would have been a very serious decision at  straight to the court of appeals as opposed to district court so that's what that was about yes certainly but this is a complimentary part of the same project what congress was attending to ensure here was that review of any cat claims occur only pursuant to section  claims that there was a jurisdictional gap that congress didn't solve until the real i d act of two thousand and five when it added a th of the statute but in fact we know from fara that congress anticipated that cat cleans would be reviewed as part of a final order only doesn't say if that's what it's difficult it says you can't review them cept as part of the review of a final order from the roof and that means i take it that we don't really know to be honest whether when you view this as part of the review of the final order of removal did it mean to pick up all the standards there a you know that that applied to review of a final order of removal or was it just talking about how you proceed don't go to five courts go to the one court and do it at the same time you know  can't get clear in my mind and you have an interest in persuading it one way or the other which it really means just as prior we understand that to mean that congress anticipated that cad claims would be reviewable only as part of and subject to the limitations on final order review but also was the administrative understanding of the statute the implementing regulations in one thousand nine hundred and eight echoed far as limitation and the preamble to the rule making the attorney general explained that she understood that kat claims would be how that would have worked in that those years shore so with respect to non criminal allan's aliens for whom the criminal alien jurisdiction bar is was not a problem just talk about criminal aliens what for criminal aliens as a result of this court that's correct including implicit that pose a problem given that far seem to suggest that there would be some review well but for non criminal aliens there was a review was occurring in the ordinary course of an alien who had a cat plan that was denied  removal proceedings would file a petition for review and the petition for you would challenge the final order including the denial of a cat claim in the courts of appeals or reviewing cases like that now for criminal aliens the facts on the ground are somewhat different because the criminal a decision in st cyr it's run just right i'm trying to get this straight i'm just trying to get it straight in my mind all right at one point you had the section which says look person under a final order of removal if you're a criminal you can't appeal it all and you also have the preexisting section that said to the cat person you can get review only as part of the review of a final order to remove so if you couldn't get it all you couldn't get it here it seems because there was no part there was no final order removal so it could be part of it then later on they had this other section say wait a minute you can mr criminal and that's because of st cyr perhaps you see you can get review of a final order of or of removal and now we can get review of our cat claim because there's something to attach it to so the question is did we in fact in saying that we being congress mean that the condition that limits the final order of removal also limit the appeal of the cap claim which is no review effect and that's why they're saying it's a different thing this was just a vehicle and you're saying no it isn't a vehicle it's part of it's part  k i got about that for the sporty and that's why i got to then think well there is this presumption in favor of review ability that's how i got there i guess with petitioners account of the history that led to the real i d act according to petitioner in the real id act congress understood itself to be solving a perceived lack of jurisdiction in the courts of appeals to review cat claims that is that is un subject to the limits set forth in one thousand two hundred and fifty two now as i as i began to say earlier we do think that statutory withholding of removal is is a very hard case for petitioner here because everything the petitioner says about why cat claims are different than a final order removal could equally be said for statutory withholding claims and of course in foody this court itself identified withholding of removal as the kind of decision that when it occurs in there a move proceeding is reviewable as part of  final order that entered at the conclusion of those proceedings every court of appeals in the country was reviewing statutory withholding claims in the years post stating foti and predating ira there is no evidence that congress meant to of lemonade or a motion to reopen the removal proceedings and the agency denies that motion to reopen that is not itself a separate finding of remove ability or an order of removal and yet it is unmistakably clear that the denial of a motion to reopen it can be reopen is that what you're seeking to do is to undo the order removal and so that it's quite clearly within your out your the other side's theory we still which you haven't told me is where the language of defining order remove all how i read that language in the statute it's the st definition congress has given where in reading that those many decisions are perceived at recognising the problem of what is the congress had those decisions in front of it and he could have chosen to write something much more comprehensive but it didn't it could have said order  to include the decisions that precede the order only now when we read that way because we decided i think it was forty that's correct that in churns of channeling review we wanted everything channel to the court of appeals a different question than whether or not you're going to put in a bar that bars review all together well handling in reviewing and so congress looked at it and said the one thing we're boring is only remov of removal and there is no indication and petitioner has yet to explain why congress would have wanted to exclude statutory withholding claims locoed armors him guilty is according to him maybe they didn't but i don't think he's taking the suspicion in your favor basically saying just what i think in the reply brief petitioner makes clear that if you accept his theory that would mean that statutory withholding claims are not reviewable as part of a final order of removal now in footnote seven of the reply brief petitioners try to hypothesize some other bases on which courts might be able to review those claims the guy would be a very startling development now also i think i'm just going to this is not a case where we have to figure out the meaning of a term by looking to zillions of different statutory provisions and trying to make sense of them this there is an explicit statutory definition here and the statutory definition says what a fine oh what an order of removal is as order of people taishan but nobody thinks that that makes a difference and it says it's an order that concludes that the l n is deportable which you agree it doesn't do and it concludes and poor it waters deportation which you also agree it doesn't do so you're saying well even though there is this explicit definition here we should look back to a bunch of cases that were decided before the statutory definition came about that were decided before a four and a five came about that even when they were decided the court said that the language wasn't clear and the only reason that they were deciding the case that way was because they had a policy concern about bifurcation which doesn't exist anymore so why would we look to those cases rather than the explicit statutory definition when justice kagan we do think the history that proceeded this statute to inform the courts understanding of it we are also pointing the court towards the explicit text of the foreign affairs reform and restructuring act which makes clear that congress anticipated that cat cleans would be review as part of the final order of review which is consistent with our reading of the statutory definition but not petitioners unduly narrow understanding of that term before my time expires justice alito i would like to address the question that you posted  do think the petitioner has waived any argument that the court of appeals erred in applying the criminal injuries to bar in this particular case because your did not seek rehearing on bank on that issue petitioner did not seek this court's are you on that issue having said that we think the court can decide the case on the premise which petitioner did not dispute that back or back to the main argument the th circuit in the th circuit have adopted petitioners few of the statute obviously big circuits with lots of cases are you  significant problems and how they've been applying substantial evidence review to factual components of cat claims or other problems that that's generated that your honor the the standard has made a difference in some cases in the th circuit there are the  doesn't that suggest or at least the court's thought there were mistakes being made in the administrative process in those queues well it's true that there are some decision which in which panels of the th circuit a group in disagreed with the agency fact finding but i would just add if i may mr chief justice the rule that the th and th circuit's have applied is not the rule that petitioner has advocated here and in fact he has abandoned the reasoning of those courts thank you counsel five minutes  thank you i'd like to st begin with the point that the government made about that the notion that the removal order is limited to removal only to the country specified in the removal order respectfully that's just legally wrong the regulation is eight  and forty point one two some provision d it does state that an immigration judge needs to identify one or more countries to which removal is to occur but the nd sentence in that provision and i quote in the event that the department of homeland security is unable to remove the airlie into the specified or alternative country or countries the order of the immigration judge does not limit the authority of the department of homeland security to remove the alien to any other country as permitted by section two  act so there is no need to amend or alter the final order of removal in the event of cat relief to lebanon even though that lebanon specified in that order the individual the t h s without further administrative action can remove the individual to any country that specified in section two hundred and forty one the nd point the government claims that work is just curiosity to me can the government change a port of deportation assuming prisoner comes and says my mother's in this other country i rather go there i think then or go back to the judge to get permission to do that no your honor this regulation allows the individual to be sent to other countries in the section  eleven of the countries that can be a country of the individual agrees to go to i believe and that is willing to accept that person so if those things match up and they work with the government that that can be but it's all laid out is just silly to mention a few moments ago about the different countries and orders that are permitted by the statute those are all swept within the order of removal even if it says lebannon on it by the regulation the nd point that the government suggests that were wrong about the legislative or about the history of the real id act i think we're clear on the t clear purpose but again the argument about the history thing is a bit misplaced because if the only piece of legislative history that describes a four is in the conference report and the conference report says that its purpose was to quote allow aliens in section two hundred and forty dollars ruvell proceedings to seek review in court so the only snippet of legislative history that we have on a floor says that the purpose of it is to create judicial review the government's contention that we're just mistaken about the history there i think is a misplaced argument this is exactly what congress ought to do now the next point i think this is a pretty straightforward question of texel interpretation of this congress stripped courts from doing one specific act that's the act of reviewing final orders of removal for all of the reasons we've described mr nasrallah does not ask a court here to review the final order of removal he asked the court to review something very different that's the cat claim and we've described how a four and the regulations and the definition all confirm that this is not the order of deportation the government's attempt here is to effectively back door in through all of these various different provisions a broader effect of to see than what congress actually wrote and to see but to it was pretty straightforward on its face because i remind the court in a forty seven that definition order of deportation was enacted by congress for the specific purpose of defining the scope of to see congress said in section four  are going to strip jurisdiction for criminal aliens with certain convictions and for forty b we're going to define the scope of that this is just simply outside the scope of the jurisdiction stripping statute the congress enacted as it defined gauged in acting that that provision but next if there's any doubt about this if alternately the court thinks that these other provisions create multiple plausible interpretations of the statutory tax this is where the court strong presumption in favor of judicial review of agency action would do the work again it's the government's burden not to show that there are multiple possible interpretations but that its interpretation is the only correct one we think the taxes on in big us in our favor but if the court disagrees with at the very least there are multiple plausible interpretations and they're the presumption in favor of judicial review would do the work and then finally congress purposely chose to make cat claims absolute congress this was a broad recognition to the horrors of torture when there is an error in the administrative process as the government just identified below what that means is a court has found that the in ministry of agency made an error in finding that torture was not more likely than not one their cat relief  granted that means that there is a finding that it is more than fifty percent likely that the individual is going to be tortured or dex traditionally killed upon removal to that country the united states has made a firm commitment that our deportation system is not going to be used to send an individual to a place where they're more likely than not to be subject to torture deportation or torture or death it is completely sensible that congress did not extend to see the jurisdiction stripping in these circumstances which thank you counsel case is submitted