unambiguous noting that congress spoke in no uncertain terms crafting it the statute also allows for an individual to seek asylum after a prior removal based on changed circumstances this factor is especially relevant here given that the entire basis for mr garcia's request for asylum is stems from persecution that he endured nearly ten years after his initial removal from the united states so given what you just identified is for a very broad sweep of eleven doesn't take the bar to relief in twelve thirty one a five as literal they can't for example because there are other forms of release that are available even in reinstatement for example you he says are available in reinstatement the government literally and instead leaves itself able to expects exercise its discretion to sort of disregard that language whenever it wants to see you maintain that if we allow individuals like garcia garcia subject to  reinstated removal order to apply for asylum the part of any belief in section twelve thirty one would still applied to the majority of individuals who reinjure the united states after removal order yet under your interpretation asylum withholding of removal and protection would all be available what relief would be barred under section twelve thirty one to apply and and for the record what what we are saying in our briefs is that ninety five percent of the individuals who are subject to reinstatement at the border do not express a fear persecution or torture which means that this change in the rules that we're asking for would only affect know your own i don't think you need to ignore it i think you can do what we're asking the court to do is to treat that band as applying to forms of relief but but defining the term relief for purposes of twelve thirty one a five as excluding forms of protection and we think and and for a record there is a statutory basis for this distinction between relief and protection section twelve twenty nine a of the i n a which governs the the various procedures for immigration court in that section congress used the phrase  relief or protection suggesting that congress to envision for there should be a disconnection between relief and protection and the problem with the government and the government  that this court and others including including supreme court have referred to asylum as well as withholding every move and at least a convention against against torture as released but our position is that they're better understood as protection and though there is no definition of protection in decision on this issue did make this distinction between protection and relief but it the problem with that the court's decision is that it put asylum on the wrong side of that divide in the way that court asked that court and the government here in this case is asking for the court to define the word protection based on the distinction between mandatory in discretionary remedies but there is no just there's no basis in law just to define protection in that way there's notice there's no reason for protection to be defined in a manner that stems from mandatory versus discretionary term protection in the temporal nature of of any of that and for the record asylum is also temper it's also temporary the asylum statute authorizes the attorney general to take away someone's asylum statute asylum status based on fundamental changes and circumstances really he does not have to he doesn't have to continue his political his political activism but that that's something that this court can't expect him to give up the route the whole purpose of the refugee definition is that people can see you a minute or two  count nine exceptions and the ten open invitation to the attorney general to further limit the availability of asylum but there's no question from you as to this mr update you yes and we have further information in that regard you see the ban in section two hundred thirty one a certainly appears to be interest comes with the broad right guaranteed i don't believe that the government interprets irrespective of status to mean that you can't deny discretionary relief to someone who's in violation of a prior removal order and re enters the united states illegally you seem to be arguing that not only is granting asylum discretionary so too is a very right to apply for asylum i mean ar suggesting that eleven fifty eight doesn't actually convey any right to apply for asylum to any alien it's the text suggests i think there's a number of aliens that are addressed government to offer petitioner like r c of course he is a settlement that would allow him to file for asylum i can think of at least one instance that the ninth circuit decision talks about where the government decided to place the a and in two forty proceedings to allow him to pursue asylum so the government does interpret the reinstatement statute to be subject to the government's discretion as actually it's been considered yes so the government if so so this withholding stands yes for you just in limbo i mean the withholdings deadweight is right now this man is just in limbo nothing's happening either way right he is not being removed to the country where he fears persecution so that's great for him he doesn't have to go back to honduras he doesn't know what's going to happen doesn't i mean any time he's just in a withholding status something could change at any moment and he's prevented from actually fully living his life if he's going to see relatives if you even want to go out of the country for something else and say cation or something he can't do that and i don't think that's completely accurate first of all he's not in limbo status with regards to being returned to the country where he fears being removed that's off the table unless something significantly changes in honduras for some reason where we thought that he no longer would have such a fear and this off the table because he has these little piles of fear that he's been granted withholding of removal as far as travel within the united states people excuse me people are given asylum because of that same set of factors that correct the granting of asylum is also because of the situation specs would equate to the granting of asylum if if we got to that point it would appear so yes but you believe that he should be just happy in the status he has right now well i think the reinstatement statute calls for that result yes without looking at the asylum statute we shouldn't even consider that you can look at it but section twelve thirty one a fine i've speaks specifically to aliens and mr garcia's position who have reentered the united states in violation of a prior removal exceptions in a tent open invitation to the attorney general to further limit the availability of asylum so i'd like the government just doesn't see a conflict between them and to the extent that there is the regulation is quite clear that only withholding of removal is available to aliens and mr garcia's position what i would like to present to the court however is that mr garcia could have come to a port of entry with illegally re entering and asserted that he wanted to apply for asylum and in that case he would have been able to apply for asylum he didn't do that here he crossed  graph and by doing so evaded the port of entry and it's that illegal entry which imposes the bar to asylum never had even a national opportunity to apply heard sign them i believe there was a suit in the ninth circuit and some folks who were in that situation have now been brought back to the and discretionary difference and really first as protection reinstatement statute speaks to relief which occasionally is construed very broadly under which withholding and kat could sometimes be seen as relief but the reason it's not is because congress didn't evidence an intent to back away from its mandatory treaty obligations so withholding and protection under the convention against torture are mandatory treaty obligations which you would have to construe that the reinstatement statute not to bar what other forms of relief are precluded but also to the refugee convention which prohibits eliminating one's access to asylum on their manner of entry into the united states and second to the extent that the government is suggesting excuse me that this is what would have happened automatically as if he had done this  you coleman you had said the i j a in this case specifically stated that if she felt that she could have done so she would have granted asylum in this case that is a significant fact we think because it's it shows or the only thing that's boring barring his ability to get more permanent really is is the regulations and finally after the nine exceptions of the government were mentioned repeatedly we think that supports our position or not there's the fact that there are so many limits on asylum in these islands actually it speaks to its comprehensiveness and it's the specificity which we think are reasons why the court should treat it as being the more specific than the broad language of twelve thirty one eight five if there are no further questions thank