as well that leaves me no choice i now issue the order of exclusion well in that case we could take it back up to the board which is going to say the i think i can't let me just see if i can try the different way if we were to do that and it goes back to the i j a is there any possibility that the eye jase decision comes out any differently from the posture of the case at this very moment i don't know because i was not what are we doing except causing three years more  guess but i'm just trying to understand whether you think there is any wiggle room for the i j a to do anything different from what the baby i any said for the i j a to do  noriega it did come to questions in the jurisdiction of the of the of the board to issue an initial order of exclusion so you're suggesting that we both decide the viewing such a decision although it disagreed with the board's evaluation of whether or not the evidence supported the charge of the portability and it did remand because it disagreed with that it left undisturbed the board the fact the board had entered the order of should now be extended in this case to an applicant whose application for temporary residence was denied a full nine months prior to his departure and then attempted reactionary into the united states because that's an extension of with respect to his lack of notice of the denial then is there any need to decide whether flutie applies in this situation in agricultural services therefore that's that's what prompted the services notice and attempts to not i furthermore as you point out in our brief because petitioner by his own admission first entered the united states in march  came in on it three times to renew his employment authorization document there's no evidence that he inquired after point hey what's going on with my application for temporary residence as this court held in  removal shall be deemed to include a reference to an order of exclusion and deportation or an order of the partition for purposes of this case consequently the terms of order removal in order if you are interchangeable  sole and exclusive procedure for determining whether an alien may be removed from the united states so they covered their because many sections of ira retroactive and the counsel for the government explained that they said that because of  amnesty under section two point five eight and here we've got amnesty instruction to ten so it's not you know it's totally on point however i would say that they're very similarly situated individuals and that they were both you know reason to do otherwise and that was the holding of thirty and therefore i think the judge the judge was correct in saying this was not a case where she was fined that he made an entry and there were four would be deprived of a whole list of  discretionary applications which would be unavailable to him and an exclusion and she she terminated the case without prejudice to the government placing him and remove proceedings cross government  want that because therefore since he has children since he's been here for you know more than ten years he's eligible for to apply for relief so we have we have the one issue of noriega lopez which very specifically applies to states quite clearly that the board immigration appeals cannot