then what do you want us to do for you i'm sorry what do you want to do for your clients we believe this case should be remained and back for a full evidentiary rules but your clients in the united states i'm sorry your clients in the united states while some of the clients still remain in the lead a lane if the name places in the united states now correct two of the clients are in the united states three two of the clients are out of the united sleep i'm sorry three of the clients remain in the u ok well they were the students anyhow i think i need to explain each of the cases churcher mckee for example in the reinstatement petitions a careful review of each of those reinstatement petitions only four of them sought reinstatement each of them indicates that they are not eligible for reinstatement because the way that the government has determined that because of the five month period in other words you're only allowed reinstating within a five month period of months from which it's three five months from which i'm sorry five months running from what point because that's an issue here and what point is it begin to run the five months at what point does it begin to run oh that's the interesting question absolutely right judge mckee the question one would think that the five months would run from the date of terminations which was april two thousand and sixteen but a careful review of those for reinstatement petitions all indicate that the government takes the position that since they were involved in fraud that it goes back to the original date that they apply to  university when they applied that's the government's position apparently or at least ice is position and now u s c i s his position was that they were involved in fraud from the inception finding is that for any part of their record now in other words if they leave the country and come back they will know immediately that they were involved fraud is that that fairly accurate i'm sorry on the government would know if they leave the country and come back the government will know that they were involved in a fortune scheme drop their position is so they would generally not be admitted at that point is that i mean fraud is a crime involving moral turpitude so they would not be admissible is that also  so if they are charged with being involved in forging the scheme of course you think the vast majority of them were removed from the country and they were to apply to come back it would appear on their record that they were indication that they knew that this university or the university of northern new jersey was a sham well not only that they had every that's accurate yes it that's accurate but not only that in this circumstan it because they were graduate students curricula practical training under the regulations at two fourteen point two f ten i one could begin to work before they actually took classes so the fact that they will working first before they actually physically took a class was permissible if they got the permission of the me ask it is just to get a better picture so they showed up they got advertisement from a broker and i assume what they get is they don't actually even show up at the university they are told that they can go and continue their work and that's why i took fourteen point two f ten i is so important because the brokers are telling them you don't actually have to attend bar kicks in because of a prior finding of the fraudulent conduct no actually it's separate it kicks in because of the term a nation and then the terminations the government is now determined that it's retroactive so that means they've been out of thought by leaving when they did one got voluntary departure the other just left they would avoid the ten year bar but in fact under the government's interpretation which is that determination is retroactive back to when they started they were all subject to the ten year bar so when they go and apply for a visa tomorrow putting aside the fraud issue which they still have to twelve eighty six c i they have a separate problem to twelve eighty nine b says that if you remain illegally in the u s for more than a year and you depart you cannot come back for ten years we should be specific and say what is it that you are asking this court to rule we're asking this court three man this case back to the district court to have a full hearing we've made a due process claim hearing and want a full hearing on the terminations with regard to our plaintiffs and a determination as to whether or not they committed fraud because we sing it does make it right you keep saying it doesn't begin you keep bringing it back to show no i it does go back to for ok there's no question about that i was just saying there's a second disability but absolutely right the major question here is terminations due to for on you premise is a class correct yes we did how do you reconcile that with every one of these individuals being in a different posture so how is it really a series of individual lawsuits no because they were all in the same posture with respect to the terminations due to fraud they were all in the same posture with respect to the fact that the now subject to the ten year bar separately  as in the case of when fang where you leave the united states and you seek to come back you were barred for ten years because you were added status for more than one year before what how the government interprets to twelve a nine b our position is that that should not be a bar but it may still remain a bar i don't know because i don't know how the government is going to interpret it when for example someone marries an american citizen let's say mr lee who's now in china the fraud goes away he goes to the embassy he seeks to obtain a new f one visa to return to the united states the embassy could say the consul officer could say they are permanently but they are barred for the next ten years because he overstayed his time so it's both determination and a fraud  vast majority of cases gets done by a school officer not a government employee in any manner and that can range from school office or the university yes it didn't exist yet yes exactly that in this case obviously it was a government official because there was no school office but typically it will be it doesn't need school official who would say if a temple it's a great school here in this city they would say you know this this student stopped going to class or stopped paying and therefore is no longer attending and therefore is not taking a full course of study which is what's required the regulations in this instance to maintain one status there's no fraud here the students as far as we're concerned with the victims of  caught up in this there how does that make fix this whole thing yes what can the government do to assure the point is that what you just said is somehow made into their official records to the ten year bar that he's talking  is now attending university of north texas on one status and if if what plaintiff is complaining about in this case with respect to the database entry that a school officer typically would enter into that database if sense that they were victims of the academic critters so can this this fictitious school officer get back into the database and say the fraud should not be attributed to this individual applicant well i suppose that they could i don't think that that's i think whether they committed fraud like if it's caught in a case and a district court level needs to be specifically pleaded i want to specifically state let me ask you a question please try me yes question one more time and i'm looking for a yes or no ok so is the government in a position get into the database and eliminate any notations with respect to fraud attributed to students in roman the university of new jersey yes or no yes yes that's really wrong but i guess this reminds me to actually university and then they get caught up with involvement in the fortune scheme they orchestrated by the government or the agency which so those are typically entrapment cases that are criminal in nature this has got nothing to do with that and the adverse plaintiffs left the country one through voluntary departure and the other on on his or her own in the middle of a move proceedings and the whole argument about i can't get back into the country because of the ten year bar that's entirely ant it is not right in any way there they never made any sort of allegations that they wanted to get back of the car at the time they never made that argument now they have never taken any steps to try to get back into the country  guess that's another prime example of how this database injury is not being held against the former police so that's why the administrative posses need to plead playing out here because it's a case by case determination as to whether the students immigration judges there proceedings and from immigration judges were terminated because that and i just found that they had no knowledge of what was going on as opposing counsel articulated those students who took curricular practical training as they were told did that is true for them he doesn't knew that they were as far as i'm aware that is correct i think suspicions could come up if they started to ask what professors will i be taking courses from and things like will say that with the patel kind of here there we in statements were denied for example because they said they did attend online classes and that of course sort of led to your not being entirely truthful with us we're not going to grant your reinstate locations all those facts are going to be before then i j and all of these same arguments about you know this is like a stash house are going to be in front of an object and all these arguments about whether the smiley is to process whether th opposing counsel is is this case amenable to class disposition i don't think so i think these plaintiffs prove that i think your point in your question sort of shows that each case is going to be adjudicated depending on the specific packs that  nicky articulated if a student says well i did try to ask about a professor and i was told don't worry about it you know that i'll come a little later on that might put someone in a completely different position as a student who's trying to portray himself as having attend online classes whether they're in immigration proceedings is typically some of this completely different then mr plaintiff jane who's already on f one status at the university of north texas right now so the class that they're trying to that they were trying to go for sort of proves the point that it's over inclusive we don't need to get there simply because they never really brought either a claim that i have that this court or district court would possibility maybe even probability that the student status can be determined and that maybe they were not participants or for absolutely that's actually what's happened i think in our response letter to this court's questions last week we did bring up that some of right there is no finding on that and as i said before just a database century is not really proof of that and the letter has the voice that's no proof of that at all with a proof of it but it's accessible to anyone who has an interest who  decision and now that they were already in immigration remove proceedings they cannot manufacture finally agency action by stopping that process on the route by either taking voluntary departure or leaving the country and thereby ceasing the r new letter or rewarding of the rest of the district court in miami no fraud well rested just of course there's no front i don't think that that's necessarily needed when they're the plate the actions of the agencies evidence that there hasn't been a finding of fraud and what i would play out now when emma when plaintiff abandons those prophecies he or she should not benefit from an abandonment to create man or manufacture finally to see action that would support the entire process or the administrate of  here actually is what we alleged in the complaint is nothing more the government for example is telling you today that people's deportation hearings were terminated because there was a decision that they didn't make that they weren't involved in fraud there were about a thousand students at you if it's phony university five hundred of them we know were given this letter the other five hundred we don't know i don't know if the other students were put in remove all proceedings and they proceed right we just don't know and that's the problem and it goes really to judge or struck on this question is this a class the classes defined as persons who were terminated and were given this letter but for example as i pointed out the original plaintiff in this case when she married an american citizen she went to an adjustment interview and she was told that the adjustment interview based on that fraudulent letter you were not admissible into client exactly what you're asking when you want to go back to the district court you say i want to go back to the district court and ask why we want the district court to enter an injunction in effect saying that the government cannot use we you know without going too far we did have initial discussions about how can we resolve this case and the bottom line was the government maintained the position that those letters were valid that they had a