well here the next case the next case on the calendar is to tell the bar good morning and over for the petitioner may please record mr patel was served with notice by the government that the officer found his testimony credible found he had established a reasonable possibility of showing past persecution on  account of his political opinion but that he would be due denied an opportunity for a full with all the only hearing because his well founded fear can be reduced rebutted because using a able to internally relocate in india in order to avoid future persecution the notice to mr patel also provided that he could be represented by an attorney or seek the advice of a non attorney consultant and was provided a list of physical service provider also ordered to appear at a date to be determined and a time to be determined finally the notice advised him that the court had been provided with no documentation from the asylum officer as none of the check marks in the boxes as to what was provided to the court was checked for his life if he was returned to india mr patel retained an attorney to represent him before the court when his court date finally arrived he appeared as attorney ready to proceed on  the st date of court as scheduled at the hearing mr patel was told he could have he would have to represent himself and would only be allowed to have an advise his attorney would not even be allowed to participate in the identification and marking of exhibits for the record which the respondent was unable to read as they were in english mr patel was told by the judge she would accept more evidence at the start of proceedings as she was conducting a review of the asylum officers decision inquire of the respondent as to any of the factors an internal relocation provided for by regulation and neither did the asylum officer it is unclear how the asylum officer or the as a or this court can review the a reason both fair process that whenever that reasonable fair process is completed their thirty days to file a petition for you begins to run at that point in time and so what so why is that so i mean since you final order of removal it can only be reviewed if it's done alongside a fine order of removal so was what is the figure argument would be the reinstatement somehow functions as a final order for t process works and expanding it to a wider group of people the congress also recognize that individuals have a anon discretionary right to protection under withholding and cat cl honor the the court has authority for review final orders of removal and this court has previously found that in the context of a reinstated removal order where an individual seeks to apply for protection under withholding our cat that that reinstated removal order doesn't become final until the agency completes its process to make a determination in regards to the reasonable fair review and i think i  and who is a refugee and how you get to that point and the internal relocation analysis and the factors about how that comes to be are defined by regulation your honor the re gulation itself specifically talks about burden shifting and internal relocation and the reasonableness analysis and what factors beyond factors related to fear and safety are relevant to those regulations are that's where the what the judge refers to what all the notices to the wrist to the applicant refers to when he's advised he's going to be put through the reasonable fair process so we would after the interview yes i don't want to determine other petitioner fail to establish a reasonable possibility of persecution or torture because he could internally internally relocate within india at that time the petitioner requested a review by an immigration judge and at the c protection from harm rather than actually obtaining relief this is the only this is the only limitation congress put on the executive and read it in orders removal because it recognizes the importance of expeditious removal of illegal immigrants as an officer and immigration keeping in mind the nature of this gatekeeping proceeding the court could apply more restrictive and deferential standard review and uphold immigration judges determination moreover the petitioner's argument for a right to counsel there is no statutory regulatory or constitutional basis for a apply because that essentially is just a standard that seems to me has more purchase if you're talking about a wholly discretionary determination you know like whether a visa will be granted when you say well  i'm just not seeing that where i would find in the materials that you provided the basis for suddenly imposing this new standard if assuming we have jurisdiction at all well your honor i think as i was stating earlier today the question is that what the government is pushing for is the fact that this is a process this determination should be a substantial difference on the part of the court if that if that determines the court determines that level of deference can be acknowledged using the special evidence standard position is more about demonstrating that keeping process that the executive has a greater leeway and latitude should have a greater difference to that process so one of the questions just about the  is is a i apologize my button still on the individual who has who ultimately is successful in a claim for withholding or cap protection still have a removal order that they are under so when an individual is in a reinstatement and a reasonable fear process even if they are ultimately successful in their case they will always have a removal order that the government may be able to  some other country where the individual is not in danger so we would argue that the issue about reinstatement of removal and what the process is is if the process is by regulation the removal order doesn't become final until all of that process is complete even if the reinstatement process was completed earlier in the proceedings we believe that's all part of the removal order your honor and i don't believe th or that's correct because there is precedent in the circuit indicating that would be premature until after the subsequent administrative process is complete to make the reasonable fair or if they're entitled to a full hearing the was he denied a right to counsel assuming that honor we would argue that the mr patel was advised that he was ordered to appear in court that's what the notice says that he appeared in court and was not able to have an attorney represent him for basic things like identifying exhibits but then also was not able to have his attorney ask him questions relevant to the determination about whether internal relocation  yes the judge advised that the attorney would only be in an advisory role and would not be allowed to ask questions the judge actually indicated that she didn't intend to develop the record and intended to conduct it only more in the nature of an appellate review but then would not allow counsel to ask any question but it was there a point in the proceedings as my question when counsel asked to ask him questions and the archers denied that request because there were other things where she made an would not allow the attorney to question the respondent thank you