he's no longer in the custody of the united states he yes he was returned to pakistan october early so what do we have before us to decide well i'm a little confused about that myself your honor  when the briefing schedule was was moved up to december i had to scramble to put this together and it seemed to me that  this is this case does not or this court does not have jurisdiction over this tavi situation because this is a challenge to custody it is not a challenge to a removal order and different track and maybe well i think this should be remanded to the or transferred back i guess is the proper term to the district court because they do have juristic that's what i didn't understand about the brief so that's why  you're here what is before the district court well if if the case is transferred transferred back we would argue that  since the the removal period since that and since the detention is controlled by eight u s c twelve thirty one because this is now i post removal case and since we are beyond the ninety day removal period at least that's what i am arguing ice with the petitioners arguing that mr hockey would be or should be considered for post removal released from custody under a criteria set forth in the code of federal regulations in other words after the ninety day period has expired mandatory detention no longer applies even though the basis for the removal order is an aggravated felony aggravated felons can be considered for released from custody after the expiration of the and i'm searching for something here but what what i think i left i would start with is that a person who is removed an alien who is removed who files a hades petition after removal there's no question there's no jurisdiction there there's no issue but if the quote is as long as the alien continues to suffer the collateral consequences of his removal courts continue to have jurisdiction that may be true for the removal of the truth fission but what's the collateral consequences of  his having been detained pretty removeable that's what we were trying to figure we're familiar with the case but you've got a removal case where you which presumably isn't moot because of what you decided but the heebie this case is has to do with custody so what collateral consequences the well he's a anymore you know i believe no the very there is no jurisdiction for two reasons and one of them is that the case should not have been sent up here the first place but second of all there is no longer any case or controversy so i think it would be futile for the court to take the first one and send it back because there's nothing for the district court to look at is there any conceivable relief that the district court could grant under the collateral consequences removal side removal petition because there there's case law on the circuit and elsewhere that there are collateral consequences that make the removal case still ok some controversy well i think  consequences question is not ok one more thing i'm not sure i understand the operation of the real i d act very well yet when you said it was a mistake to bring it up here it shouldn't have been transferred to this court under the real idea