september nine hundred eighty naturalization application and the second issue is that the december one nine hundred ninety eight remove all order which underlies the current proceedings was so fundamentally unfair that it didn't other and we asked the court to grant the petition so that mr korea can finally receive a fair hearing to which he is entitled to the court have any questions or should i proce as stated in our briefs the first issue has to do with mr korea status as an l p r as and honorably discharged member of the us air force which all common aid and that the facts raised a disputed issue of material facts and that he filed the one nine hundred eighty application based upon again his l p r status and his honorable discharge from the military and the government has never rolled on it they had an opportunity both in these papers and in the i j a proceedings to come forth with information about whatever happens in that application and they never  eighty cation but he attempted to file an additional application and the i j a presumably decided that he would not transfer the matter and did not hold the case physical we contend that the factual issue is that there is this outstanding application that he is entitled to a ruling on it and that the government has never come for in there in the record it shows that he had an i ninety four stamped with the i five five one the government in that notice to appear says that he was an l p r but yet charged him not under two thirty from the one nine hundred ninety we claim invalid the order of removal and it is true that there were reinstatement of that order but they all stem from that one tainted proceeding of two thousand  fundamentally unfair i believe that exactly which is a gross miscarriage of justice later on panel of this court can collaterally review a previous order there i couldn't find any i think that fair point is to me your honor is that the i am asked and now that the h s has certain regulations that they need to follow here they didn't follow anything they recognize that he was an l p r chose to disregard that instead charged him and convicted him or or sent him back based upon a conviction for petty theft which i don't know if your honour's saw that it was for th neat because he was hungry and he spent one day in jail and deported him based upon that there may be certain other things that that what was the basis of the  remove all order and december one thousand nine hundred eighty eight point to that saying you re entered after a previous order every level but here's that whole background became the foundation for a felony conviction which he did the peel i take it or he did appeal it stayed in place so there's been a finding now that that deportation was valid without to be the basis of a felony conviction doesn't that really kind deportation the second was under twelve a seven as an alien who applies for admission without travel documents and i believe he contested that charge during his caring for the immigration judge claiming he was a citizen but didn't know that he attempted even if he could it's already been upheld wants and so now he's independently removal on another removal ground and to say that because he was removed in one thousand nine hundred eight somehow and sex every other single time that he's legally process because you had an opportunity to appeal you waived appeal and that's it there was some mention of the fact that he was charged as an invisible enemy and that was actually correct the charge under two thirty seven may or may not have been correct to twelve provides that think that is what mr korea was charged with having committed so he actually was properly charged under twelve most of the other claims this court has specifically rejected a collateral attack on a removal order  i position is that you're required to dismiss them most of them are without merit anyway however exhaustion is a it's possible that i had something to do with the application but there's no indication in the record of what happened to it now however he is in removal proceedings and the district and the immigration judge he attempted to again apply for naturalization before the immigration judge the immigration judge exercised his purely discretionary authority not to terminate removal proceedings and it's clear that now that he's in removal proceedings he's not eligible for citizenship and so he filed this application back in one thousand nine hundred that was a long long time ago he had numerous convictions after that he was ordered removed after that and in fact i don't believe he argued to i don't know in one thousand nine hundred eighty three or he was a citizen or not but it's clear that he's not a citizen and it's also clear that now he's not eligible to apply for citizenship because he's in removal proceedings and when the decision whether or not to terminate removal proceedings as this court has also recognized is a purely discretionary decision of the immigration judge that is not rev and two based on his most recent illegal entry the immigration judge refused to terminate removal proceedings so he is now not eligible to apply for citizenship