rule as to whether or not an immigration judge during the removal proceeding may rely on evidence that the judge herself had said had not been filed with the immigration court in removal proceedings and therefore was not on the record of remov eleven without counsel the hearing was reset he later he later appeared with me representing him after having filed a motion to suppress and terminate the removal proceedings which was filed on june seventeenth two thousand and thirteen the government filed response in response made several citations to a for my two thirteen which is document prepared by ice after the air can take somebody into custody and are preparing to determine whether or not to issue to appear in their case at an august twenty second two thousand and thirteen hearing we buys the court that we had not received a copy of the diet to thirteen but it wasn't attached to the government's opposition to our motion suppress fand we had no record of being served with it the immigration judge reviewing the record indicated that the eye to thirteen had been filed in bond proceedings not removal proceedings and needed to be refile and this is  at page one twenty nine one thirty of the transcript of the is administrative record at that time the government county government counsel represented by the office of chief counsel did not have an extra copy of the i two thirteen to do so that she could file and submit with court the court asked if we would wait for them to make copies and we said we would but we did have a merits hearing a final hearing for a change client in another court room and we like to file the idea for change at a later date and serve me by mail mail me a copy we were ok with that and d h counsel responded yes i will file the i to thirteen on another day it is undisputed is clear from the record that they never did so because there is no date stamp copy of the i two thirteen and after that after that point is moot in the record there is an i two thirteen in the bond record a bond proceedings you're not we're talking about the subsequent removal proceedings and the statute at eight u s c twelve twenty nine eight three rise of the removal proceeding is the exclusive procedure for a chip for an immigration judge to make determines nations have removed ability for a personal ledge to be a foreign national it also and twelve twenty nine a subsection c one it says that the that the determination must be made on the record in the remov side says it seems to me that it's not it it's not a big deal but you're making more of it than it is you know about where he's from and that's really all you've got interest in where you're pushing it doesn't seem to me that was missing you didn't get a is received into the record of a court it is date stamped and that is evident from the from the one document the eye to thirteen isn't isn't the record in the barn proceedings there is a take stamp saying that it was received by the court on i'm i'm not yes sure i don't know what was i don't know about the twelve twenty six twenty seven twenty eleven in the administrative record the only copy of the i two thirteen that i've seen is the one that is marked i believe it's january it's not that i don't know it could be part of the bond person in your honor i don't know than we do we informed the court at the august twenty second hearing that we didn't have a copy it and at any rate and that the judge said it had not been removal proceedings that it only been filed in bond proceedings and told the government that they had to refile the government did offer to make copies we were waiting but again and this is not part of the record i understand the court can could we can only wait so long when there are other clients when we have other clients and other court rooms in this case a detained person who could have been sitting for six months already and and could have had it hearing going another two months if it got continued because we were stuck in another court room waiting for copies to be made where you know mr on how smart he is he remains new united states here has been ordered removed they have not executed the order  and we recognize that while the tutored by two thirteen may be a presumptively reliable document and the judges may rely on it when they're in it it's admitted in removal proceedings the fact that it was not filed in removal proceedings according to the immigration judge and was not served on us thereafter deprived us of any attempt to challenge make any challenge the i two thirteen we had no law and no opportunity to object to it or to question mr and tell us moran about the circumstances under which the actu thirteen was brought forward the judge said you need to refile that the government didn't and they didn't serve it and the next thing we got was the judge's decision i see i'm in my  for the copies which they decided not to do nevertheless the document appears administrative record the immigration judge on and her decision on page eighty six the administrative records she references that the  ny to thirteen i also would submit to the court it would not be typical to have the bond documents in the removal proceeding record because they are supposed to be separate and apart of course so that being said we believe the document was in the record and it did alien and the other issue i think your honor also referenced is really what the what is the remedy here if they weren't kept separate the part they have a dog in the bond proceedings it was presented during the rule proceedings and so if there were some sort of point in the in the proceedings has he ever contested his alien edge he's not done for the immigration judge never done for the boers or done for the court here today so even if if he's be sent back down the really is no it's sort of the futile remedy available to him to go back to correct your honor and so he's not in custody is not in custody now given no you're meant no where he is well i believe that we know where he is he's is is with his counsel he's communicated with the normal home and security to keep his address up to cochran your position is that this form was introduced at the will proceed it was presented the removal proceeding your honor again at one twenty nine to one thirty the record the dia just attorney said oh i have the two thirteen here at one evidence that at least the judge laid eyes on i think the best as the judge laid eyes on it to be that that discussion about the document one twenty nine to one thirty as well as a representation her written decision page eighty six that quote v h s submitted  was brought to the attention that it was brought to the attention the court and apparently was in the bond proceeding and i am sure that absent a showing on our part of that the information was inaccurate or that the information was obtained through dress or threats of some sort that it was going to be admitted into court however having not submitted it in the removal proceedings so that we could do so that we could effectively make that challenge of the opportunity to make that challenge in the in the hearing below and the and that opportunity to test the evidence would have been determinant of on the motion to suppress and terminate which we have important issue whether or not he has had the right to have evidence presented during his removal proceeding had an opportunity to challenge evidence presented against him had an opportunity to partly my time as a no you can conclude and have the opportunity to have his