later he set out and began to apply for a change of status to a student visa he went to a school he applied for and i twenty he'd go get financial application the restrictive when we look for is a violation of the constitutional provision or statute or something and i'm not sure we have that here i think we do because decision doesn't rather than the structure i would guess what i mean by that is if we have all these cases that that say for example that you can't get around the jurisdictional bar by simply alleging that something happened that gave the immigration naturalization service the ins constructive courtesy excusing constructive custody over the petitioner that's constructive custody later transferred to the new entity the bureau of order of removal together with the fact that the petitioner had been in the country illegally for more than a year is what creates the tenure apart from readmission the final order of removal was affirmed back in one nine hundred eighty corpus what the petitioner is now trying to attack is a totally separate decision the two thousand and two decision on the application for adjustment of status or amnesty that it's a decision as an application for benefits that would currently be under the authority of a different agency the bureau of citizen and immigration services that decision does not change in any way the custody that the government has over the petitioner it did not create a ten year bar and it didn't have any collateral consequences that are at issue in this case it didn't didn't move didn't change and by itself couldn't move or  amnesty under section twelve fifty five day except in the context of a final order for removal here we do not have review of an application for amnesty in the context of a final order removal therefore the won that legal argument he still would have to come over overcome other legal barbs such as the fact that he has been rendered excludable by having been found to have committed visa fraud in conjunction with his first marriage and its first or something can you tell in custody on the ground that the governor has granted you pardon well i'm just saying that there's no way you can challenge the custody that follows from the d argument that he was entitled to an amnesty because he was in this country illegally before nine hundred eighty two it would not show that the custody was unlawful he would still be in the la custody of the united states government because of the final order of deportation that custody would remain lawful in the last month and until he went through all of the various legal applications maneuverings that obtained all of the legal decisions saying that because his application for asylum was denied he was immediately placed in a pen with other with other people under a constitutional condition to the united states but in this case even if he were to prevail in a legal argument that he's bringing before this court on the illegal status as a general first one hundred eighty two it still would not come up overcome all of the barriers necessary to have a legal basis upon which to actually obtain amnesty and then attempt to attack the final removal so this if there are too many steps there is no direct connection between what challenging legally here today and what he hopes to obtain under this type of argument it could be brought to the point where a simple decision by an immigration agency to reject an application for un timeliness or because it was procedurally deficient if it could  imposing custody as a basis for asserting haziest jurisdiction over some other type of decision by the government and in conclusion your honour's this petitioner has been fighting the united states immigration system for over twenty years he has filed application after application under legal theory after legal theory the agencies that were granted the legal authority to review those applications those little reviewed them they have rejected them on their merits the district court properly found that it lacked a subject matter jurisdiction to review or to reverse the final legal effort by the petitioner to obtain liquidation