consulate of the united states that's in the country they were removed too so if somebody comes over the border from canada or mexico and they're told no you can't come in here you don't have a right to be here and what they're supposed to do under the law always go back to canada or mexico and appeal that order in the american consulate and that's where they got their review and that the only limitation on review was if they making that if the individual claims either a credible fear of persecution if they were returned or if they say no wait i'm a citizen or i'm a legal permanent resident i was previously admitted as a refugee then in the when they make a credible fear claim that goes to an goes they make a sworn statement only makes a sworn statement that hey i say that i'm previously admitted the officer then can refer it to a judge but the judge only can decide whether or not to affirm or vacate they put her on the bus and they sent her back or whatever they that's who ok and then she comes back again and this time apparently it's alleged she did the same thing she provided it in a fixation in someone else's name and at that point the rience the order was reinstated and they want to remove her again and now you're here before us saying no i my client's due process rights are being violated i want an opportunity to contest the circumstances under which she presented herself to the race right now if i can get back to the station is really important in that she's not  could have just stopped after the first section but it went on to say there can't be a due process violation because some right has to be taken away in order for a person to be entitled to due process before the right is taken away it's the procedural defect that you are raising is that since a due process claim that she didn't have an opportunity to contest this facts and circumstances surrounding her attempted intrigue and why isn't that was the subject of the reinstatement order isn't that what the court was referring to when we talk about procedures that he's foreign and he said it's i don't believe that if it's limited to that the section and subsequent starts that section  this is a case for the first time first impression of this court saying that the expedited removal order there's a kind of contention that the fact it's legal determinations in that order are inaccurate and that question has been before the court i see them over time and will give you one minute for rebuttal anyway thank you thank you reviewed here the expedited order remove a letter so i get the reinstatement statue itself it says it can't be reviewed ok i don't want to beat a dead horse your but i want to make sure i understand it so what that means is the only thing that the alien can with i'm not i'm not aware of that i mean there you have the officer says she lied to me she said she was an american citizen and what's more she admitted she lied to me so she says no no no that's not true you just don't understand that's because we're talking about arriving aliens here who'll be coming from any country around the world and expedited removal process allows the inspectors at the border to turn them back if they have no valid entry documents and if they make ok let me make the most simple suppose the officer turns the person back and says it's from some country where you need a visa stamped in your passport before you get to the determination yeah that's the i think one of the things you can't lose sight of the fact that these aliens that are arriving arriving aliens at the border have no constitutional due process protections at all because they're coming from and i didn't within the bounds of the united states so in essence we're oh i'm sorry here you're right let me give you the language extension the procedure for review it is is what i have previously  have the same due process or constitutional rights that a lawful permanent resident would have if he were standing in the shoes of that and that's why i'm having a hard i understand your frustration but i don't the bare minimum which we still provide the bare minimum which is a fine judicial hearing for folks that are found in the interior of my god if i get this right under your analysis somebody who is excluded at the border and sent back never gets into the united states has fewer rights if they stay in their home country and then try to come in again legitimately through the border they have fewer rights then if they have to begin excluded at the border they never get into the us physically so they get to process road sneaking in is the only way to go as it's her miserable for congress to say that the bare minimum of procedural protections that you get is one time to get your full judicial hearing you get your chance to come forward with your lawyer and put in all your evidence honor i believe that that's incorrect because the parameters of her review would have only been if she had made a claim to have fear of persecution in her home country or if she had said i really am a legal permanent resident her contention here and her real  has the right to answer questions and once a determination has been made by the inspecting officer that she is already inadmissible