your honor my name is carolyn word and i'm here today to represent mr gary poll vol i'm here to ask the court to issue a decision compelling the board of immigration appeals to follow its own precedent decision matter of sanchez from the many immigration cases that it has thing in recent years exclusionism is a very different process than deportation exclusion occurs when a person appears at the border and is making an application to enter the united states for this is under the old immigration laws and when i say old i mean crazy iraq so it occurred before september thirtieth of ninety six and the and before april first of ninety seven which was actually the effective date this case involves a determination of whether or not a specific provision which gives the immigration judge jurisdiction the former i knew section two thirty six a states in part that the immigration judge shall have authority in any case to determine whether an arriving alien who has been detained under section twelve twenty five shall be allowed to enter or shall be excluded and deported in our case mr paul overall was was issued and i want twenty two at the border which indicated that he would be placed in exclusion proceedings however he was not detained nor was he paroled into the united states instead he was told to return to canada which is the border he came from and that they would send the notice of the next hearing date to his address in england because he was a british citizen at his initial hearing the choice to the to the service at the border is that they can either turn mr hold back and in some cases we understand that somebody attempting to come into the united states who have been in the united states routinely and work in the united states for a number of years will probably make another attempt to come into the united states for the work at that point then ins has to make a choice that they'll either let him into the united states and hope that he shows up for the hearing or they're going to have taken into detention they have no way of turning back and saying look we'll have a way it specifically gave the immigration judge jurisdiction i would i agree that that is what they had to do at that time of course the laws different now i mean we're not talking about the current law which allows them to go back and that doesn't require that he be permitted but after this case you know this case was decided i believe in april of ninety six and then in september of ninety six the law was amended which now allows a couple of different exclusionary ways for this to happen one is they could send him back to canada or tell him they wanted to continue what they had to do they had to show up and here was their date and they were allowed to do that and to proceed in absentia if they didn't show up or and now also they future date right because the statute specifically allows that under the current law under the prior law it only allowed you to either parole him in and you can probably conditions too so if the concern is that somebody isn't going to show up they can prolong and they can say but i want to show up once a week and sign and i mean that's how they do it now if they want to parole somebody we want to see you are going to put a bracelet on your leg or they have ways to control whether if they have concerns about whether somebody's going to show up or not so they do that now days and they also did it then i mean this but they chose in this case not to let him in at all so they could have taken him to detention or they could've told him with some kind of conditions and they chose to do neither in this case and what the thing that's i guess different in this case is that what what ball and sanchez both the decision by the majority and the decision in the dissent further stated that the court can still have jurisdiction even if they don't detain him or they don't parole and if the person comes in before the immigration court and says please decide my case i agree that he had not been issued a parole document at any time there's no indication whether or not he appeared and attempted to get a parole or just decided not to appear or situation isn't quite as extreme that as essential as it's a little it's a little different take on whether he was paroled he was issued a document that would allow him to enter the united states i agree that he was issued a parole document but the way that parole operates is a person is outside the united states they make an application at the border and the parole document is issued at that time in fact in another context of immigration law there is what they generally call advance parole person who has an adjustment of status application pending perhaps because  employment sponsorship or family sponsorship they request a parole document and sometimes they use it and sometimes they don't well if they don't use the documents they retain the status they had prior to the document being issued but if they leave and they reenter the united states they're deemed to be paroled and then be subject to exclusion proceedings versus removal proceedings and it changes the whole way this case these cases are handled i don't make sure i understand your theory be the reason that that's not a parole document what appears to be a parole document is not effective at that point the united states has already excluded him and lost all power over him since he's presumably either in canada or england or someplace else if he had appeared at the border and they have handed him that document then they would have had the power at that power at that point they had to have control over him that's correct and it by issuing a make parole document take the apparently that's what she indicated at that time which he was at on august twenty third when the product was issued they can't retroactively change his status they can't go and say somebody who's entered illegally now we're paroling you when if you if you're in the united states they can't rest or active immigration law for twenty years and i have never seen a case where they paroled somebody once they're already here and last but they do a different inspection which is you're at the border and they tell you at that point we want to do a further inspection come to the seattle office or the san diego office or whatever on this date and time we want to talk to you further about your case and at that point when they show up for the deferred inspection a determination can be made to pull them in if they so choose but beyond that it's simply not done and there's no authority to do it and like i said in twenty years i haven't seen and try to for all somebody who's already here this is a totally different procedure thank you of the united states for an application and i don't really mean that and then turn around and try to come in third fanatic and then and then somehow the services they're there after is limited from taking a look at that first attempt to enter the united states just indicate that the pro can occur in certain circumstances but it doesn't indicate that there's a time period during which that must happen so you can feel your question is of the united states can't hold somebody in to the united states at any time well i believe if there is to if they believe that for example in this situation hearing i would agree that it's detain but the statute provides that the person shall be detained and since he wasn't detained at that time when the document was issued i know that the statute permission to come into the united states for the purpose of attending the hearing i would i would argue that in terms of jurisdiction either you have it or you don't at the time the documents are issued and when they failed to detain him when they issue that i wanted to that they lost their ability to continue this at that point that they had to make that decision then not at a later date because an immigration judge only ha jurisdiction on the case if if the person is detained and if you allow that immigration service to simply essentially fine jurisdiction at a the prior law and it has been corrected so i'm not really worried about future precedent in terms of how this is going to hurt the service or force an alien to be treated a different way i do want to point out on the notice that was given to him they said if you fail to appear there could be an order entered or we could just find that you withdrawn your application for admission so that is also on on the notice that was provided to and that would be  it doesn't say that it's i in this option it says that one of these things could happen the presumption i suppose is that the judge will decide or somebody is going to decide what's going to happen with the case not necessarily the ins alone one other thing i wanted to your time you expired i don't have any other further questions today can i say one thing or i just want to point out one thing and that is that the reason one of the things that was said in the briefing on this is whether or not you could have an attorney come in and contest jurisdiction and by appearing through an attorney there was a statement made and so therefore the person submitted to the jurisdiction and i would i think it's pretty obvious that that's not the case but the reason why i wanted to point that out to the court is because in the immigration courts themselves we have this issue in other areas where the immigrant don't do not like to allow limited appearances by an attorney even to test jurisdiction or to deal with