this case is about a pastor from ghana who came to the united states using a validly issued visitor visa he was stopped and not allowed entry into the united states despite having that these are the question before this court is subject matter jurisdiction whether the immigration and nationality act contains provisions that would preclude a court from reviewing his sole claim in this action which is whether the decision of inadmissibility by the customs and border protection agency was proper legal aid or not the district court judge determined that because he was found inadmissible she had no jurisdiction review that decision she referred to sections of the immigration and nationality act all of which refer to expedited removal orders section twelve arising from or pertaining to rather expedited removal orders in this case there is no expedited removal order and the reference of those statutes to the expedited removal process makes clear that there is no review certainly over expedited removal orders this court determined that very clearly in the con decision but the process that occurred at o'hare airport in may of two thousand and seventeen did not result in  expedited removal order rather the agency allowed pastor ernest o'day to withdraw his application for admission to the united states that was a discretionary decision by the agency if it was authorized by statute not under the expedited removal provisions but rather under a proceeding provision that twelve already decided that there is jurisdiction in this kind of case where someone is allowed to withdraw their application for admission it's the modish in a case that we've included in our brief  government looks at back case differently it's a little complicated but basically the court found that there was standing in that case and therefore even though the district court didn't really address danding in her decision the government has raised it on appeal and we just wanted to make the point  finding because they had an interest in his at miss abilities of the united states as well we don't have really many other issues other than  the standard of review based on the somewhat rare distinction that pastor o'day was coming here to perform activities that were consistent in this area and under the religious freedom restoration act we think it mandates a different and more searching review of whether the c b p this inadmissibility finding was correct or question but that's what you're asking us to review and that yes that's corrals within the category of orders for move all right so we don't have jurisdiction to review right so that the the decision i mentioned does talk about a separate statute it's a us c section twelve or one age that refers to people who have been granted visas to come to the u s essentially it says there's no right to enter the united states but if a person is found to be inadmissible that will basically the court said the the  but how is that not just an end run around the jurisdiction strip and provision well it's not to parse things that finally well i don't think that this court's decision in mod there is a problem with your client having left the united states voluntarily attempting to get review of a visa decision in that's incompatible with that particular case and with quite a few other decisions think your client get review of a piece of decisions like have to disagree with how you just don't disagree with my reading of seven circuit cases answer my question all right modest kena relied on and found in that case that that person that the plaintiff was precluded on the merits by that doctrine that she was actually asking the court to jurisdiction that reference should provide relief as well morning your owners council may please the court that's essential are essential argument here is that this was an attempt to end run around the the that right removal that there is which clearly is the heart of it the way that he's that that has been done here is that they're looking at this is to say that because because immigration exercises discretion and cut him a break if if they find if immigration would find that he was and they did find that he was subject to exploit rubel and they actually removed him he subject to a five year bar he could not come back for five years without a waiver that was that that's a very harsh result khan talks about this that this court i don't think was exactly thrilled maybe with the exparel procedure the procedure that's that's not forth but it says that's not our job is to review these decisions so in that case they said you know there are flaws with this but we will we understand it's a lot of visitors to come united states o'hare airport has seven million travelers a year we are there making a volume of decisions they're looking at this these people are gatekeepers we're not going to review these decisions in the way that you a million or eight that process is with this withdrawal of of admission where you would draw your application for admission so that they the immigration officers have the discretion to say we're not going to subject this persons who are rule order we're not going to bargain for five years we don't think that that's kind of a harsh result we're going to let them go back and because that's not necessarily an but i removed the order of councils arguing that they're entitled to review that that finding that would have resulted in an order and had the officers not exercise discretion it in this case there being it would be as if if they exercise but i remove order under conn clearly there's no review if they give them a break and they cut him a break you let me go back really there is no review you are aware i hope that the ninth circuit is just told that statute unconstitutional yeah i  clearly doesn't apply when something like goddess happened right here and obviously i'm relying upon the court's ruling and conn and the way this has been applied in the way it was applied in this case i don't think that in this case how did we get here you have pastor o day coming to the airport when we obviously don't have to decide that question whether there's been a  left voluntarily i'm i'm just concerned about saying oh well this is all clear when given a decision given the next circuit's decision it's anything but clear on the expert i i understand that some of the nicer it just ruled on that and i'm relying upon this court's ruling and conn which did prove the actual removal and in this case even if one looks at this at the airport he was he came up with any they explained he comes in with a b one b two a visa that gets you in as either a visitor just to go to disneyland or something like that or it gets you in for business purposes as long as you're not being paid here someone who is a minister would qualify as a visit business visitor under the b one standard if they had a church for example that was going to that they the sponsor them in guyana or their specific churches sponsor them here or all that he came up with a letter which is cited in their brief and that didn't even we talk about so go as being the but as being the as being a plaintiff the letter they came up was from  heaton who is the head apparently of sogo wasn't on any social etiquette letterhead he didn't tell them anybody thing about any of that and it was all that he was going to be a volunteer missionary and he was going to come in and he was going to minister the church all those things are are completely fine except that he had no treat when he with his question there was no specific church that was under identified there no specific church here and that's why they made the conclusion that he didn't fit the requirements and that's why they led him to the to the to that decision and that's why he was he now comes back in the terms of this case and he has not done it i mean there's nothing specific even here in terms of what he's done he hasn't the he got a visitor visa that that allowed him to come into the united states for a five year period of time that would have expired by the passage of time and there is no way he hasn't see it sought to get a visa to even come with it that's where our point of there is no live case or controversy here there is nothing here that he can specifically point to in terms of when he wants to make a visit or that he's even in the position to do that of these is issued by the department of state it's not issued by u s c i s or the c b p was that it was an agency that did this thank you i'll be brief we're really just relying on the language of the statute itself we're not trying to make fine distinctions between findings of inadmissibility and expedited removal orders but the statute in our reading is quite clear that for this court to not have jurisdiction there must be an order of removal that was entered that was the ruling of the court in the western district of new york and we derived from the modish seen a case that it would be the same if that was presented to the court which of course it is now is so that's all  we don't we don't disagree that c b p has a very serious job to do but this was not the kind of case that should have raised concerns to them the real reason that four or five months a year here doing his religious activities and he should have been here on a student visa we disagree with that but all of these are not jurisdictional arguments they should be considered