good morning honors i mean please the court i'd like to reserve two minutes why is that even an issue before me seems to me that we have a did novo standard or review of the i j a and even agree with that yes that's true yes so if we have a review and we get to the i j a and it seems to me there's really no nothing happens in front of the asylum officer which is at all important because what you do in the  you come in and present your argument one more time and everything that happened in front of the asylum officer is of no essence yes actually are you finished yeah ok actually that's not how procedur i've never been in one of these courts before so i have to take it to my court we have a traffic court if you don't like what happens in traffic court you can go to another magistrate and you get to noble review in the denotable review in the magistrate court you just present all your evidence again so what happened in traffic court regs have no essence whatsoever well it's irrelevant that's correct however in this situation and the procedures of the do novo review it's not actually to novo review what the immigration does is he relies heavily on the transcript of the interview questions that the asylum office conducts with the petitioner and so he does the honest truth is that what happens is he gets the record when he gives the record the petitioners in front of them and he has all a question he wants of the petitioner so any and the attorney as i understood it in this case was said you want to add anything you want to do anything with this do you want to give me anything else and he said no and so the but the i j a have the chance at that point to get everything in front of him presentation of because the the i'm for in this specific case the petitioner did was for close from presenting a part of his asylum case but he could have presented in front of the i j a and that's what exactly what if you can present all the evidence again and why is there any prejudice there because like i said what the i g does is he reviews he relies heavily on the notes of the asylum officer for presentation of the facts and those notes were completely devoid of the fact that he was politically involved and was the president of a co operative you that presented that to the i j a and he did and so therefore it doesn't matter what happened with the the i j a is in charge right but then i j projected his own first world view black and there was no evidence so i cannot reshape that you're going to go to the problems the i j a had and i can i can get with you on that my only questions are why are we talking about what happened in front of the asylum officer when the noble review if it was a substantial evidence review and that's all it was i think your argument would be pretty good because the i j would have to address every one of the arguments but where it stood novo and you get to do everything again why is there a problem well your honor i would just submit to the c says there's a problem no there is no case that says there's an app on the problem that i have is that it doesn't seem to be there's a case and i have to get the government's while i have all of documents that say it's a noble review and i don't give the asylum officer in the deference it's all the i j and now it's coming to me so if you go after the i'd raise problems i can say i have to think about those but i'm still having a tough time understanding why i have to deal with the underlying problem and if you give me everything you've got well you're out and giving me every right but unfortunately i don't have statistics regarding the determination actually he was found the petition was found to be credible i understand that and so therefore i don't know why all of those access comments were given really has anything to do with what we're really talking about here well it's in the date there was a brief continuance for interpreter and for the for the attorney if they had the right for the continuance just because they don't get enough time present the evidence why is that a problem well because the ok i could not go to the supreme court i didn't have enough time to present evidence if i didn't ask for a continuance and have that denied and if i had asked for a continuance of have that that night i might have a thing to say when i go regulation provides only ten days that the review needs to be completed within ten days he gave them opportunity but in what happens is he does he only gave an opportunity in order for an adequate interpreter to be there what  it was a remedy through the motion trio and that was filed and there was an expert opinion that was provided to the court by dr thomas foreman and mr boreman and dr berman excuse me presented evidence that  that what the petitioner stated is actually occurs those sorts of things occur in guatemala and any other motion for a continuance to allow dr born to come in there was a motion to reopen that was filed so i guess the to provide bormann well it's not clear the the there was no way to know ahead of time that i j bias until he ruled on the on the situation on the case  apologize to the court well frankly here's what i found and i'm i'm just trying to make sure i found an eight u s c twelve twenty nine a c seven that an alien may file one motion to reopen the proceedings yes that's right that's but but then what i'm really finding is that there's a regulatory right because the regulatory right is that the me the panel could say that there is no legal standard against what to say that you can't real put in for so if i have a right to reopen and i don't and that regulations allow this reopening and it seems to me you're suggesting it should have been reopened exactly right and you're saying that there was a due process violation for saying i can't yes it's an abuse of discretion and let me ask you that yes if in fact he said you can't reopen and he said what he said i believe you said that there was no jurisdiction an expedited removal not an actual removal order like there was at issue in this case and in that in that case the court found that the petitioner trying to reopen xperia removal order by presenting evidence had a right to reopen that case the remov the authority what was the same guy he believes that that there could be a separate request to reopen to the asylum office which actually petition our dead take that step and that was also denied so what he was saying there is you've got to go back to the asylum officer yes exactly and i doesn't twelve zero eight point three one not allow the v h s was the asylum officer to reopen or consider the decision well as a matter of practice they do that they they reopen cases when additional though even though that's what it says under the regulations yes process of the court so when an alien subject to every move order leaves the country the removal order is deemed executed when that individual re enters the country that prior removal order can be reinstated against the alien of regular removal proceedings but it is an entirely separate procedure by which d h has can quickly and efficiently remove an individual who has previously been determined removeable has left the country and has a legally re entered the position we united states at some point illegally re entered and was issued an expedited removal order he was removed and it is his third illegal it is his third re entry that resulted in the nonetheless to go to the asylum officer and have his argument takes as takes its case goes through it and then he's allowed to go to the i j a on it did novo review as i understand it correct and as i understand it further then if it's a noble review in front of the i j a what happens in the asylum office is really of no essence correct you agree the silent officers decision yes is not what the i g is relying upon it is a dynevor review and the alien does have in this case certainly the alien did have the opposite he did have the opportunity to present evidence and his claims for protection so at that point i don't have to look at what happened in front of the asylum officer really have to look at what's happening in front of the i j a i mean really for due process violations because the i j a doesn't have to rely on anything that happened in front of the asylum there's an he says he's going to get all the evidence again kind of like traffic court ok your honor ok so then at that point i'm looking at the due process violations as a relates in the i j agree your honor in this case they received one continuance for an interpreter but throughout the hearing the i j a gave petitioner ample response and full opportunity to testify and at the conclusion of the hearing even asked petitioners counsel if she had any happened was the acts of the i j a exercise that susan to reopen that issue of whether or not the issue of the question of whether or not you have an alien has a right to reopen was not presented in iowa immigration judges as a matter of practice reopen these proceedings but an alien doesn't have a right to demand reopening because they were removed because the reopening provision is only under two forty proceedings well i guess when i read one or three point two three b one it doesn't say to me that you cannot be open it says you can reopen any case you want in which you made the decision so if you can reopen any case you wanted which you made a decision i'm still having a tough time understanding why a motion to reopen can be filed to be honest your ire the attorney general hasn't actually spoken on the question of whether or not the authority issue i can tell you as a matter of practice immigration judges reopen cases when motion reopen reinstatement proceedings when a motion to reopen is filed and that's exactly what happened and immigration judge reopened in this case the judge tonight it for lack of authority but they do it all of the time they do but and i also worry that he said he didn't have any authority and only that the ages has authority and then i read in twelve well i think i'm going i think petitioners counts and i can probably agree on the fact that the h s does and frequently will reopen or consider motions to reopen and that's the agency's position is d h has has the inherent authority as part of their correct he doesn't hear that all right that's a demand he has the alien does not have a right to demand reopening but then i got all of the i g can reopen but an alien doesn't have a right to demand authority but he doesn't have statutory a regulatory authority to real good in a reinstatement removal case i believe so your honor we must worries about that is that if we come in with all this i mean we don't have it in this particular instance maybe because all we as an expert report that might have been able to come in before if there's a rest being made what he's going to work for interest and the government has been killing people at that point you're saying he at the core assumed without deciding that the immigration judge had the authority to reopen that was not whether or not and has a right to file a motion to reopen was not presented before the court so that's all i can say about it as a practical matter and individual individuals frequently file motions to reopen with immigration judges and as we see and i all immigration judges do grant them whether or not an alien has to demand it by statute or regulation that's something that the government does not believe is there i can tell you also that all discretionary and we have no right in that well it's just a motion to reopen is a discretionary remedy i understand is discretionary but again i'm trying to figure out if i have any right in that if i have any right to say you've got to do it i mean certainly if it's a legal error or a constitutional lawyer i'll have a right because i can find it in any way this is worrisome to me because in everything we've found it's a motion to reopen and i js do it all of time i have never found anything and of course we don't have a lot of evidence i've never found that the ha says i don't have the right i don't have the authority they either do it or they don't well i have just i guess t responses that your honor one and everything this court has found i'm most in syria open where the issue has actually been squarely addressed those that present under two forty proceedings we don't have any law on your two forty one the closest we have is where the issue was not presented our brief before the court and to even if we look at it under an abuse of discretion standard even assuming that the i g had authority and it was incorrectly granted the abuse of discretion standard would not be met here well i understand but if he says i don't have the authority and he's wrong and at that point i cannot do it that's a legal error and i can get in that case but if he says in my discretion i'm not doing it then i can't get in but in this case he said i don't even have any authority and that's the question that i think she raises specifically as to and allows me in well you know it's a legal remedy your honor all i would say is that petitioner was able to file a motion to reopen with us c i s which was denied and petitioner would have had other remedies to further pursue that but they did not they have not submitted their revenues go to district court with a denial by u s c i ass they did not pursue that other words i claim for withholding and kept protection because that was the basis for filing to seek further review of the u s c i asked and i were not in those right we don't have asylum these are not allowed for is not allowed in the correct asylum is off the table for individuals into forty one proceedings the court have any other questions for me thanks for ok thank you reopen there are a number of different grounds to file a motion to reopen one is just a statutory right within ninety days at the proceeding where new evidence is like has been found another is in absentia and then there's another for asylum which asylum and reinstatement of removal proceedings but we're asking the court because there is a change circumstance argument made in the motion to reopen that he'd be allowed to apply for asylum because as a matter of wasted resources otherwise he'd have to file