hundred ninety nine we don't have a record of that deportation hearing although it was before an immigration judge because the tape was somehow destroyed what we do know is that t nine in front of an immigration judge we don't have a record of that hearing that's the part we do understand so he came back three days later didn't he came back three days later but when he came back it was reinstated ok so what i the reason that i'm focusing on the july first nine hundred ninety nine proceeding is that it's the perceiving that was reinstated so many times down the line as the government refers to in their brief and in that proceeding what we know is that she was a legal permanent resident and he was being deported because he said that he had committed nineteen eighty four with arms action that were paroled but in nineteen ninety nine the grounds for they there is no indication in the record that the immigration judge was informed because he had previously been deported despite the fact that he was not deportable there is no indication anywhere in the  affidavit in which he stated that immigration into flood came to him with a pre filled out questionnaire that where he just checked off the boxes that's in the execute record and you can tell from the handwriting that that's the case and what they told him if you want to get out understand why somebody would go by the name joe instead of on it all he did issue a name he gave his address and in the declaration he stated that he believed that immigration knew exactly who he was because he had an immigration card on file he knew his fingerprints do any of that he was not supportable as charged he never should have even been injured partition proceedings and he had a felon greeting card totally nonsensical he could have given a different name so that his criminal record would not had his identity they had his fingerprints from jail they had his they had a student birth they had everything and he was not a deportable alien he had a valid green card and they did up they chose to do a quick deportation in one thousand nine hundred ninety ninety true thirteen and i'll find the record say for you in which agent flood mentions the prior fraud proceeding the prior different a number in the prior deportation as of when did he know that he knew that prior to the judge was tired and we don't have the record of that so we don't know but there's no indication that the immigration judge knew that he had been deported as an l p r and if he did know there's no indication that he told m at all the service is perfectly capable of saying well you're out of what you're out of luck the time has troops but he says so has the right to file a motion saying here's why i fired it late i didn't know until today i didn't know and those motions are filed in immigration proceedings are the time motions to reopen the choker that your argument rises and falls of whether the judge should have said something different on july first lady mary my whole argument rises and falls on whether or not he was properly deported to nine hundred ninety eight and whether he was eligible for relief i just have to show that he was planned all stipulate he was not properly deported one to russia right one ninety nine he appears written correctly deported except you say the duchess is something different than what he said do have this review as making were misrepresentations directly to the immigration judge that only about his name but about whether you have a family in the united states at that time he said he had none he also said he had only been living in the united states for the last four years and had no job i believe the question i would have to review to get the exact question that i believe it was how long have you been in the united states at that point in the proceedings immigration judge was seen a fall of your departure was a viable option that's why i was asking about you and your family that live here how long have you been here is that anywhere in the no equitable tolling or equitable situation second even if that nine hundred ninety nine hearing were also somehow invalidated the government was also relying on both mention ninety nine and two thousand one expedited removal that july fourth one thousand nine hundred was  removal as was one in two thousand and one those were based on his coming to the border and saying he was united states citizen which was not true and never was true so those are factually and legally entirely independent of anything that happened in one thousand in either i it would appear that the the prior documentation from nine hundred ninety eight what has been in the file in the literally in march they would have had it there were two separate files they were combined they numbers are combined i don't know the procedures at that time but i would assume that the physical paper would have moved as well and that that merging