and simply put respondent did not enter the if you have permission to come into the united states she did not have permission she knew that she didn't have permission to come into the united states we cannot dispute the fact that you  stress and and wait to the guard when she came through and that he waved her through without stopping or did that make her lawful in the united states that there's two parts to those two and entries here and you're referring to the second entry which an authorized at that point when you when you get to the border you're right in the united states in some shape or form and an immigration officer makes the determination this should not be there sh commit some sort of car i'm she wouldn't say way i'm not punishable under u s law because i am not in the united states correct but what i'm what i'm trying to lose is the definition of an entry into the united states which has been acknowledged throughout the court system as going through inspection coming into the united states and being free from restraint and that is the key word here she certainly was not free from history and did not meet importation should have said that instead of saying read entry into the united states which has been defined as coming into the united states and being free from strength webster defines it as the trying to come in illegally a second time would you say there was a norse well at that and no entry at all never been and then at that point they were still being you know read a freedom of restraint elaborate on that what was contemplated in this statute was someone who came into the united states and sums shape or form either through a visa or another means was found to be illegal in the united states was given an m t a when the front of an a notice to appear in front of an immigration judge was charged with illegally being in the united states was able to go in front of an immigration judge plead their case prove their evidence and have that proven in this situation the respondent was not able to do that she simply came the united states was determined by it an officer not a judge to believe and this is extremely problematic and so you're talking about the first time i was talking to the first time at first i was extremely problematic bout this is that at the border with first time it was determined by the officer based on the hearsay statement without any documentation that she claimed to be a she has is that she now has a determination that she claimed to be united states citizen and is now barred from life and any immigration benefits she has she has no way to challenge that if she was able to be in the united states been for them and immigration judge she would have been able to to have the user the officer i phone that's or that's not the process the congress has provided for the congress is very specifically provided for an expedited removal process so that we don't we don't have to so we don't have to have these kinds of challenges over every over every little thing sol and we acknowledge that but what we are saying is in terms of reinstating a deputation border when it says entry into the united time and it wasn't ambiguous to her as to what her status was right no and she knew that she had a prior order barring her from coming into the united states whether she disputed that she claimed whether the she was a u s citizen or not is irrelevant at this point she knows that she has an order barring her from coming into the united states without permission and she came into the united states without permission he did come into united states without permission however the language of the statute s coming in and we haven't been gauging a little bit of affection even though people sort of step across that international line we don't regard them as as having entered what made her what made her appearance the first time different what made it on is the entry doctrine which which was a legal fiction that was needed pre a rare when the statute turned on whether someone answered formally entered or not for to determine their procedural rights and now now that congress has taken out the definition of an tree we were back to the prior judicial definition this was discussed and young june leak case which was a doctrine still exist but whether it's needed as a legal fiction to determine the procedural rights of certain classes of a aliens that legal fiction is not needed anymore because the immigration nationality act order that person would not be subject to the reinstatement statute because the first prerequisite is whether you were removed under remove order that would not be the case for such a person is just turned around at the border is the different is the difference that statute kind of stand along it's not conflict with anything else why can't we just look at the plain language of of the of the statute and say she went she came here before she was and she and she it's not plain language argument because that is based on a definition of entry and a legal fiction of the introduction that's no longer what's but no longer what has been appealed no if it's not it's not needed as a fiction that the statute defines the procedural rights the problem with the entry doc the entry docs and sole purpose is to figure out what process it is due  he's clearly steps into the united states he's in you know hundred yards and they chase him down and arrest him if he has he entered or is a concept no longer knew it it is grafted into now whether you're admissible or method and it's still applies and in that manner i guess that's the best way to say exclusion exclusion for those who were stopped at the at the border seeking admission but had no permission and that's that's that's the key here ms tell us both times had no permission to enter her her her other argument elaborate on a question that was posed to me earlier about the procedures available to elian when they are subject to an expedited removal there actually is no appeal to that officer acts in that capacity as judge jury executioner and that's an important distinction to look about how what is an entry and what is simply inspected at the border is a valid due process clause it does it has deemed not to violate due process having expedited  removal but that's a very indicative of what is actually happening at at the border because they have if we've already held that that it doesn't violate due process clause what possible challenge do you have to the procedure well that it's not a challenge to the procedure i'm trying to tell how can you challenge it because that's the procedure the congress has provided you told me that you don't have a due process clause challenge to that because it's been upheld as consistent with the due process clause so one of the basis you have for challenging that at this point what would be the basis for challenging that at this point is even if the court agrees with that to issue her a notice to appear to challenge that in front of an immigration judge she has u s citizen husband she has four u s citizen kids one of them is blind and autistic and to simply say to this woman that the word of an immigration officer is going to preclude you from any rights  benefits in the united states when you went to the border and you want to accept that this was an entry into the united states that allows a reinstatement order and not give her the opportunity to go in front of a judge and have her present her case because otherwise she would be able to adjust status in the united states and live here with her family otherwise she has absolutely no recourse if she is not given the opportunity to go in front of an immigration judge and the sole what would be accepted as in entry into the services and informs them that she did not make the statement they accept blankly that the officer was correct and she was wrong and denied her adjustment of status and that so that is extended it's been address