as is subject to review because there is a waiver of sovereign immunity under seven o two the the district court improperly believed that seven o four somehow limited the waiver of sovereign that any other parts of the statute would apply to the waiver of sovereign immunity congress could not have included a sovereign immunity provision a waiver in seven o two only to believe that it would be limited by time online because we just heard rose split up so i'm just going to get your back i hope just sort of some factual concerns that i have there's nothing that i see the governor made history that prevents you from going back to the department of state  a voter id or with whatever real i d your client has and having them assess where they're now that's sufficient at that point you could go to just a board if they arbitrarily said nope that's still not enough you could go to just abort and make the argument that one thousand five hundred and three doesn't apply to that situation do you agree i think that it's possible that we could do that quite fly in has tried six times each time the foreman of state has said no your honor but has he i'm curious or department was was the fact that the state of the texas had removed the addendum or the red flag on the birth certificate but still wasn't enough and so mr at this point mr upcoming run this does lead with bringing his constitutional claim and there is no there is no obstacle to bringing that claim to this to the district court there unlike  this it is a different cause of action than any other claims that could be brought against an officer of the united states or an agency by using the waiver discovered in unity in seven  two the other point that i was making is that the government acknowledges as much in their brief they don't ringback rely on the district court's reasoning for dismissal they rely on the fact in argue that the that this pain the this case was properly dismiss because of the rd sentence in seven o two and this is where the issue of fifteen three comes in  for bits the release on the government has been arguing argued that it that this report and that is what they're arguing before this court but in order for that provision to apply the statute must an express provision in there that says that no state can be brought concerning indian lands there is nothing in the statute that says nothing can be flogged as it concerns citizenship or nationality like let me used is going to affect my atlanta is going to effect me and the supreme court says well that provision doesn't apply there the last sentence of seven o two and the reason it doesn't apply there is because the nature of the  general what the plane that was complaining about was the was the effects of the use of the land on him that's the same situation here let me tell you why the th amendment speaks to any believe there is an adequate remedy your honor but but gonzales personally more on prevents these seats from being filed there or a legion of cases in south texas where we have been dismissed again and again based on con taylor it is problematic but let me just say that the problem is is that the war didn't analyze that with the language that we know we know that the a p a is not a jurisdictional statute and therefore it could not texas killings case than i i believe it's correct that although that didn't arise in the context of section fifteen of three a that there is there's no reason that  the exclusive remedy for circumstances like  had i don't know that it's necessarily the exclusive remedy i think that even within the act it notes that people can in those removal proceedings and that individuals can  application and so they deny it and then there's a pandemic so you don't want to travel anyway for a bunch of years and you hit your th year and all of a sudden you want to travel somewhere and you submit all sorts of proof that fully comply and the department state some district courts especially in new york have said that when you look at fifteen or breathe the time are applies when the department of state says no passport you're not a citizen that isn't what happened i read in these letters here they said you didn't give us enough information that must happen to thousands of americans all the time i just went with my daughter to get a passport there's a lot of stuff you've got to give and if you don't get it all just right we're going to have to reapply but people get lazy they don't apply is the government's position if you get denied once five years pass before you think i want to passport again if the government then says no the original under gonzalez the original denial means you can never brecht it i think what's happening is just  are saying fifteen of three applies when the department states as you're not a citizen but as i read this case you never said that to him you just said you didn't give us enough he kept trying and maybe you'll try again position of the united states government's position if he resubmit and has better proof like all this stuff texas apparently gives maybe he's got a real id maybe is voting as an american citizen is it still the government's position that if that were denied he would not be able to jump into federal court because he let too many years go by and if so what is it is that your position and do you have authority for that so i that i don't have authority to answer the specific question about whether you know a later application brought down the road based on a different formation i don't have that answer right now but it's also not the case that it's in front of the court i guess i thought i was right in gonzales it was also an insufficiency of proof case and as i read it's not in the brief because i read other courts other courts are saying surely that issue did not come up are certainly was not an impediment to the rulings that the court or reached in those cases the it's also important to note that  i just on a practical level that what happens when there's there's a regulation that requires the i can i can give with to make sense to me here and of course we know here there was a mexican burst to begin before i fully understand that authorities need to look into that i'm not glossing over that at all but i am sort of thinking actually comedy texas it look into it though about what specific what specific evidence he provided with his passport application and so i think that because that's not in the you know the attachment with the mexican birth certificate at is still subject to that requirement that you've got are you going to present additional evidence to overcome  t red flag on the delayed u s birth certificate well i still have a lot of time i just sort of think to myself this is a really complicated legal picture  you're going to get court review but maybe you are saying he would i'm not exactly sure what i'm hearing you say seems like this could be a big mountain out of a little mole hill if he actually is a u s citizen voting and driving and he should just  sure i i think that whatever evidence was presented to the passport office i don't really have that in the record you know that he  admitted additional application but specifically what that evidence was d not part of the record on appeal and then i guess the question have to go i'm sorry  id more evidence different if he was poison a dead one of the fish and see insufficiency rather approach on his part and he couldn't you know prevail based on and then the government says sorry it's too late in the the five years bars filing a claim an order from three quarter after obtaining a final administrative denial of  that the issue there was really about about finality and that even essentially that there would be no purpose for the statute of limitations to exist if every single time someone filed a new application it's just the start of the clock and that you know that certainly would the st denial is when the statute starts to run are you prepared to discuss whether were or courts position in taylor is a lonely one in other words are you weather sovereign immunity is whether or not that's that's a whole separate issue and obviously you know our position is is briefed on that but i think it ultimately doesn't matter because either way seven o four covers the claims here and taylor adds it's very clear what was going to remain that they there was a due process playing as well as statutory claims under the if if that seriously if theory a seven if you were able to go forward it would essentially render them no force limitations meaningless because all anyone would ever need to but again that's not that analysis is not even required because independently of all that because there was an adequate alternative remedy under fifty three dollars a that was where honor no one who would apply who applies for a passport gets the nod because they forgot to include their picture or whatever they forgot to to check off a box and they got a denial letter nobody know per rational person would understand that if they did nothing about it they would forever lose their right to challenge the right to establish their citizenship this is a phenomena that is very common in south texas and in each of these cases the government are not not opposing counsel but the state department is playing a bit of a game with individuals lives take a look means what it says that it doesn't matter that there was no final decision on the ground that the person is not a national and that the decision was based on his sufficiency of the evidence it doesn't matter you're for ever bar united states or citizens he has a right to go to an article three court and demand a hearing on his claim and there is no language in seven o four or seven o two that boris his constitutional claim and there's nothing in the legislative history that says that for individuals that bring constitutional claims with an explicit basis in the constitution that they must clear the pool of seven o four  against mr combat on his on his constitutional point for ever closer is the door on him bringing a citizenship plane opposing counsel has suggested we may be able to file another passport application and perhaps we will get into federal courts i will recommend to my client that we do that but i suspect that two or three years from now we will be back here again because it is the state department's position that gonzales versus lee mo all such claims after the statue of limitations regardless of the basis of the denial this court has not expressed lee address the relationship between seven o two and seven o four that will hold difference be you would be making these arguments in the st instance to the district court instead of saying gonzalez controls we need to preserve this and go to a full court you would be making both the arguments that you're making to the district  engage in in what i would say is a futile exercise well glad we do that but again over i don't know i don't know that is true i just don't think i didn't mean my questions to be hypothetical my questions are directly your current situation but i don't think the  and that's what i think is working in other courts i disagree your honor it is not working in other ports i work with other advocates who are litigator in these cases there's about three or four of us in south texas who know these cases and we talk regularly about i say working other boards i mean in the district court of the district of columbia and in the new york federal district courts i'm not saying in the th circuit i understand your honor i apologize but