fifteen to share was arrested and detained by the department of homeland security for having entered the country without a visa really after that in june two thousand and sixteen while gratian fifteen years were finding he learned a warrant was issued by the by a mexican court for his arrest in connection with the death of his former girlfriend and then he hired some attorneys in mexico they attain what's called a he obtained i guess a spanish workforce but the english definition is a definitive suspension of that morning and that took place  like it was punched in to translate and then come out i mean it's kind of difficult to figure out what i mean i agree i'm not aware of who translated it but i've seen many mexican legal documents translated and they all translated in a very stilted way into english so it's because they tend to be very wordy i mean didn't you submit this document to the federal court  the translation yes we did and you don't know who translated it or how it was translated i believe your brief talks about google translate in a footnote but like judge barrett i'm a little mystified so no well i think suspension requested in respect to the act and indicated stories in a third recital so that's the controlling language that's what i think that's what you're referring to if i'm not mistaken is there any other part of that language to you was like me to clarify any further so the document i thought indicated that mr knoller and the other man who subject of this water would have to submit money for the benefit of the mexican court there's another but another part of that order so it makes it look as if you get them back to mexico  they could be released on bond my understanding i did not see anything with respect to money but  was this where it says first second in the north by is it somewhere i'm no why shouldn't we simply let the mexican courts sort out the meaning of their own order while i think which seems to be a mystery to us well i don't think it's i don't think it's i don't think it is mysterious the order that i'm looking at and i'm trying to find a thing about the ten thousand places but i can't but the part that i'm looking at talks about a definitive suspension and it pertains to the previous warrant that was issued so there's a cast doubt on whether or not there's a valid warrant this there's a constitutional issue involved in a case then the court could look at it and hear the constitutional issue is whether or not you know there was probable cause to arrest and so that's that's how we can look at it and i think you put it even if it doesn't fit in the second bucket i think that when you when you read it when you read the treaty and it says a warrant must be provided i mean isn't it safe to presume i mean it's a very valid but with the entry of the m toral death casts doubt on it that says hey this is just definitively suspended so that's that's our argument and that i think is if he should carry the day i mean that's all colleagues raising raise questions about we should get whether wait whether we should get into that at all but to get into it we would need to at least i would think start with solid evidence from your side undermining the validity of the w well let's let's talk a little bit of offering here i mean the government has come forward with the basics with what's needed under the under the treaty but there's a warrant evidence of probable cause a request from the mexican government and you were agreeing correctly that the original to the warrant was valid so where's the solider evidence that things have changed and if they have changed why hasn't the mexican government told us well i think the mexican government ignored the imperil and furthermore part of our overall claim here is that he's american excuse me what the next of kin government's going to do here and going back to what i understand it that you know there is a burden of proof here and i think that if they have the government has to valid but when you look at the probable cause this to to our to establish it you see that we get to our next issue which is whether there really was sufficient probable cause and hours after the incident brought by her mother her her testimony and you like you said judge it's hard to decipher what what people are saying take a look at this this three recovered bullets and that that is inconsistent with the testimony of two shots being fired in fact if you go back and look at the forensic report in the investigative report in the record two spent shell casings were found and one fire the treaty simply requires presentation of a war that is what was done to impose any further requirement about this status in the validity of that warrant based on some collateral proceedings in mexico would put it burden on mexico that is not contemplated by the treaty that might be available i do want to point out that the second quarter they point to the september twenty second order two thousand and fifteen has seemingly contradictory language in it in one point and this is on page thirty two  immigration court inquiry work made it through non diplomatic channels asking the mexican government to confirm whether the warrant was still valid and through again not diplomatic channels formal channels they confirmed that it was you have anything to add to my custodian question i believe your honour's correct in your sentiment that the proper party should be the custodian which is in this instance the united states marshal any extradition consideration by the secretary of state but at such time as that status lifted the full record from the immigration court that was already produced to be provided the secretary of state for additional information to be frighted to the secretary of state and presented to the western countries in the courts there i don't think that would fall within the realm of explanatory evidence that is allowed to be presented before the extradition and i think that would go now respect to the last issue annette is this respect to whether the board you know improperly abdicated story to decide  r immigration court now it certainly to me seems that mr noir has a vested interest and having an order from that court explaining its reasons and so forth that would lend some reasonable persuasive authority that he really should go back but without an order there's nothing like it it's quite unfair i think to the to the petitioner here to not have something fro and given that he's been in you know contesting these proceedings and trying to get an order there's definitely a vested rights that i think so you that the case poses an interesting problem but this relationship between the extradition and immigration proceedings the government makes the point that if you are right there and somebody who is here who's the target of an extradition request has this ability to freeze  extradition by by seeking asylum for example or protection under the convention against torture that is not available to us citizens or lawful permanent residents here because they don't need or have access to asylum claims or convention against torture claims before mary well i think that i mean that may be true but the point is if well no so we're talking about somebody who's going to get killed and has proved pretty substantially that they're going to get killed so i think that you know that that's important and so if that's the case and that's