held they were associated with the movie that being an anything and therefore a danger to national security but the only non hearsay evidence in the record is that two of those four individuals attended a rally in denver attended a public rally by over a thousand individuals including united states congress and clearly first amendment protected activity yet the government claims line some of the evidence at that is that the individuals if you give credence to the government i hear say evidence is that they're sympathizers or supporters of the activity no basis whatsoever to conclude that they have their dangers to national security they have the v a he created a new mandatory detention classification organizations in any way or i do thirty six c one d which also has a manager retention bar for alleged terrorists or people who are members of terrorist organizations or supporters of terrorist the combination of the immigration judge has pointed to this first of all said that there was information about this doll form whatever that may be in this dispute as to what that is as exhibit nineteen in the record completely denies it and that's part of the record also so we have been summoned not in court who can steal says said and then we have individual the question i had as to whether evidence based on hearsay that may have stem from time a tiny whether you actually challenge that properly in your brief or whether you even mention it in your reply brief but not your main brief and that wasn't discussed before and whether it's really just the informant's testimony was properly when i read your brief i thought that the gist of your hearsay problem was the informant and that's how i read the blue brief the opening three so that's what i was focusing on and then you know what the constitutional areas and if there is an activity to do anything but sympathise with an organisation that the government does not like now i would also point out that the their evidence the evidence is that the the national council of resistance and that was what who called the rally in denver the government subsequent to detaining them designated the national council resistance as a as a and and were supporters of the ne and i supporters disputed finds it is as little as going to a demonstration and again there's no evidence of doing anything else that violates the first amendment because they're entitle to go to commit stations other organizations that we don't like that's what this country is about well so they in your view they can go to a demonstration a designated terrorist organization and that wouldn't be a basis for  and not in any way and did anything for the organization that's what the two immigration judges in the withholding cases concluded now i understand we're reviewing the bond decision here that was presented to the district court and that's and that's relevant you have jurisdiction question ok when you talk about the due process that's easy enough to separate out is constitutional question i have is that several of these i think number three and four of your list of potential jurisdictional things you suggest are not really kind of flat out constitutional but that they would come within good eras and good eras in the end said that there wasn't jurisdiction over these abuse of discretion type decisions so what you think would be a workable rule for deciding whether something really falls under the r would be for instance if the immigration judge or the board said you know fifty thousand dollars bail to insure your presence here to protect against they are being detained under i am a section two thirty six which is the attorney general unlimited discretion to detain illions during removal proceedings there is no review by this court and two three six which ny time and for any reason to revoke bond if you turn a general in this case based on changed circumstances revoke the bond immunity brothers and think we have jurisdiction to renew a constitutional challenge we w has made clear in case after case that even in cases where there's a constitutional violation argue if the board or the immigration judge could have taken care of it if it's a question of a procedural high lation that the  constitutionally valid aspect of the deportation they do not limit that they don't say there has to be sufficient evidence and in fact in camera in him we were talking about people who were legal permanent residents  criminal records who are in deportation proceedings who don't show up that is sufficient to justify the mandatory the detention of legal permanent residents who are in removal proceedings and then remove a body being examined on the basis permanent residents and many we're not that's not the basis for determination that they were here illegally because that's usually the status in which they present themselves but under two thirty six and a other than people who are mandatorily detain that provision gives doesn't have the ability but this court has time after time said that when you're talking about a procedural due process question where it's an issue are objecting to the admission of evidence that a court could could resolve at that moment could take a fundamentally fair and i think part of that that question has to be that they had an opportunity to object to it at the time it was offered and they did not and they've come into court now with perhaps though the regulation gives the board unfettered discretion it doesn't it doesn't give a basis for weighing that decision that the court can look into seeing whether the board has has abused its discretion and that's the same situation with the at any time so they didn't have to be evidence of national security risk in this instance the attorney general felt that finding evidence and if they house maintained by a by an organization that is designated a terrorist organization by the secretary of state that that was sufficient evidence along with the with the testimony of agent who has experience dealing with the e knowledge of their practices who had knowledge of the makeup of the of the organization or rather the people that attended the different around these and who had who testified about his experience with this type of informant mr rove attorney test or hearsay testimony but the informant testimony was hearsay of a nature that was made the proceedings fundamentally unfair at least as to that if you were to take out that testimony would you still be left with a basis for the attorney general's decision i think so because i mean as i said the statute says for  house which there are no witnesses said that he thought he could be a travel log but in fact that these four brothers they if i guess their argument is just being on a list doesn't mean anything if they if you as a participant in the rally along with the congressman why are you in the category like congressman of simply expressing your first amendment right because we have designated organizations which you cannot support regardless of the first amendment that you cannot support we have criminal laws preventing you from giving money to and worse and support for certain terrorist organizations and  accept their interpretation of the evidence when rather than the immigration judges and the board's interpretation of mandatory detention issue in this case but the board in fact looked at both at both questions and even if they were not subject to mandatory detention they were subject to detention and two thirty six  particular crimes under section two twelve of the either in two thirty seven of the immigration act of what is when some of the portable for support of the terrorist organization is if you are a member of a terrorist organization already provided material evidence you also need to assess whether it's reliable evidence that is whether or not it's fair to conclude based on here's the evidence not confronted in court that the factors because little because of because of the constitutional matter you cannot detain an individual without no reason at all with no reason at all that the government says well we can just detain the person in the here and you know because we don't like them you know they you know they need  determination by the attorney general under two thirty six and that would seem to be contradictory to two thirty six which tells us that courts won't review those determinations and you know i don't think so i mean explain like two thirty six it is two sentences one  person because i think i heard the attorney general's representative say yes there would be jurisdiction to review a constitutional crime but then we get back to the question i asked you earlier is when you have what i think is a sufficiency of the evans claim trying to be kind of morphed into a substitution of playing and that's where i think that's the harder issue we're trying to sort out here why under the constitution what the supreme court said in that case is that there can the decision can be overridden where it is clearly shown that it was without