of the underlying removal order can be challenged however in that case the court held that the challenge had to be in district court in haiti as proceedings and so there the court transferred the statutory constitutional questions in hades proceedings there is then his argument so this court could transfer to the district court however he also claiming that the reinstatement provision does not apply to him because the reinstatement requires the provision requires an illegal reentry after a removal and here passport he was he was if flew into the phoenix airport it was what i think of it what's in the record is the passport had been issued by the mexican consulate here in portland he only had a one way ticket and that's they the statement in the record is that he did not have a valid passport or a crossing card or a visa that then goes on to say he had a valid passport and border crossing card so what happened when he was ordered  however if i may in terms of this the statute requires a reentry and that's what congress required in congress could have easily used the word entered and they said reentry and it is very clear that the court my name is jennifer like i do you know i represent the respondents the issue before this court is whether the immigration officer properly reinstated a prior order of removal and the answer is yes he did properly reinstate entitled to have counsel present during a time reinstatement of something that was that was previously ordered and he had an opportunity to challenge that underlying order he can't do it here but he had he had an now in this court's decision in arizona they transferred it based on a constitutional claim and the government would submit that there is no constitutional claim here because the petitioner can't show any prejudice can't show that his status would change because he was inadmissible he was knocking at at the at the door asking to be lied in and he was turned away he was told now so in a challenge that he makes i'm sorry i'm saying that the court shouldn't transfer it i mean obviously you can't stop him from going into hevia but this court shouldn't transfer the case under areola because this case is controlled by the dia so you can't removal shall be removed by reinstating a prior order of removal he saying that there was no entry because he was turned away initially well in an exclusion proceeding there isn't technically an entry into the united states so under the regulation he says he's asking you to read out the word exclusion from the regulation and i would also submit that in p d f this court the fact similar to this as in this case where the court specifically that you know in that case had also found inadmissible turned away and swam across the rio grande and free under of the country and this court used the so what the petitioners actually asking this court to do know is right out  officer that he had previously entered the country illegally and so it is a really entry and what he's asking this court to do is contort the law to take his posts specific situation that the court should almost look at is prior order of expedited removal and the reinstatement in not look at anything else not look at the regulations not look at his previous immigration history and i would submit that the court should not do that that the regulations first exclusion it means exclusion it doesn't mean that he had to legally enter the country it was the court should be focusing on that phrase having after having been removed and he was removed from the country and that has admitted again under oath that he unlawfully entered the country and then he really entered the country the same day that he was ordered under an expedited order for move all those regulation or otherwise that a person who has a who has an attorney that's known to the government and the attorney is there is not permitted to consult with the attorney to bring the attorney before the officer has to make the decision and i'm sorry i'm not able to answer that question i'm not sure what the department of homeland security policy is with respect to permitting attorneys to be present during a reinstatement that again it's transfer it to to the district court for a hideous proceeding if he wants to speak to this petition he can do so if we don't transfer what we do i think that the court should have the reinstatement order  insult that you're incoherent i don't understand what you're saying what you told us that they told you it's no good because the removal or has been reinstated but then you tell us they haven't made a decision once the removal order has anybody told