conflict between twelve thirty one eighty five the reinstatement provision and eleven fifty the asylum statute one of the one thing that i do think is important about her past harm is that is that it occurred after her initial removal order  and i think that that that gets to the sort of the heart of this case which is what to do about these two statutes which are in conflict we have one of the directly applies it says for folks in situations of requests for withholding of removal only only i how do we how do we do that specific provision that how do we say it doesn't apply here you're going to frame your honor to the language in the regulation i think that this court should try to first resolve this question at the of removal is a park protection cat is a form of protection so you're reading up on all every type of relief out of the word relief or you know no your honor in fact there are many this is one of the relievers here that is a protection many forms conflict between the international treaty obligations under the convention against torture and created an exception to deal with that conflict the problem is that the agency is that there are other international treaty obligations under the refugee convention that were not  more likely than not standard that applies withholding of a rouble was acceptable because that's a mandatory form of belief whereas the well founded fear standard that applies to asylum seekers is ok for asylum because it's discretionary bring about a rule order and then a subsequent application which can be granted which assumes i guess that there would be a reinstatement removal but if there's change circumstances to be considered for asylum in the so you draw a well normally this is the read agree with the ninth circuit to have an unusual factor we do have an unusual fact pattern and of course the ninth circuit recognize the difference between their fact and perez's mine and this one on that basis i don't think that that is necessarily the only i don't think that you should reach a decision that's only based on change or consensus because there are other clues within eleven fifty eight that counts against using the reinstatement actually there's a limit on saying that you may not apply for any relief under this chapter if it if asylum is protection and not relief that doesn't apply here it's really it's argument is it not it's not right hard line somebody was back in this room at once before work them back in here what are we going to do you're not allowed to get any relief here we have a situation where she was willing to remove her because it wasn't severe enough if you will she she left changed circumstances wants to come out back and show it she's entitled and under eleven fifty eight h u d she would be entitled to be considered for asylum why should we say the reinstatement bar is meant to apply in this situation when congress is clearly it's persons who are in expedited removal proceedings and don't they don't don't have their asylum claim which isn't to say they don't ever get that but that's this guess would be a legislative history it would be the agency believes that relief includes withholding and cat stance that's one possibility the other possibility is that the regulations addressed the procedure and they do by which here for the purpose of those proceedings even though you've really entered i somehow doubt i have the authority to say so that they could apply to me in statement but it's discretionary as well or at least the government perceives it to be  people who are seeking who are subject to reinstatement we have it in our reply brief and pushes the tribute to her the people in the country illegally it doesn't help us as well if it is it helps you in the sense that it tells you that arguments under prior to remove workers and seek asylum that were necessary would be a smaller number than the total number seeking asylum because some people see general question the best answer that you have is that the specificity that they're asking you to put into from thirty one eighty five requires you to take an undefined word and give it meaning which as you as your honest questions indicate means a lot of different things in different contexts and in different circumstances so when you have a single sentence provision that turns on an undefined word it's hard to see how that can be more specific then a statute that has subsection sections and subsections and says twice not