the material facts of mentos are different than the facts of this petition so much so that the court's holding in mental regarding the interplay between eight u that your case and my so yes your honor in my case unlike the ilya and mento who had his status revoked in two thousand and eight which was before the federal takeover of immigration in my case my as i understand it under mento that that's sort of a relevant because if they can separately remove people under eleven eighty two eighty seven and we can talk about mental if you want but yes you're on for not it was meant to minimize the economic turmoil and hardship cost of the island by all the sudden i'm having all these aliens on site hand deportable and so it gave a transition period where if they were granted status said if one looks at it closely is that actually it's just says that eighty seven says that if you don't have an expired visa or permit you're removable and that could apply to anybody even the name then united states what nato did not confront is what we have here and what i'm going to ask the panel to consider which is this ilyin had special protection given to him by forty eight u s c eighteen zero six that wasn't mentioned so whatever the court said about the application of it was that misunderstanding the prior counsel was asked by the immigration judge on the date of removal whether the alien had status on that day and and he said no he didn't have status on that date which was sometime in tw but that doesn't it that doesn't mean he conceded that the removal that the the fact that he was put the alien in this case was put in removal when his umbrella permit was still found out that he didn't concede that he didn't concede that at the as my client and he wasn't given that protection and rip prematurely removed it's not ok to say after the fact well now it's move it's not moot because if he was given the full amount of time that he was entitled to under law he could have done scrutiny so much so that he was given special permission by the u s yes to go get medical treatment and i feel that if you had been given the opportunity the full extent of the two year period promised to him by law he could have gone ahead and apply a decision was wrongfully decided it was premised on the erroneous supposition that the counsel prior had conceded had waived and it didn't even address any of these issues relating to the interplay between forty  in the transcripts of the underlying hearings where the argument was made about the umbrella permit your honor and while i appreciate government to you know now is saying that this is a conditional permit no such argument that they can they didn't there's no finding made that this wasn't a valid not confined by mental this this that this panel can decide that that by finding him removable one hundred eighty seven when he's protected by a six is doing an end run around the intent of the law which is to give transition period to aliens exactly like my client and so the logic here's the logic that the government the basically the logic would be which doesn't make sense is that congress protection under its congress protects people like my client or status but nonetheless in the course of explaining why a seven applied date they did go through a great length this question about it can no six and and you know they said it doesn't matter now you removal prevented him from satisfying the conditions that were attached to the permit no i'm not saying that in fact i would like to in my rebuttal address that so the argument being made hansen here three minutes over time overstayed and they had tach conditions but this power subsequently was lost when the federal government took over and furthermore as you know my government abandoned and forcing these conditions they did not follow up on anybody and have a single government position i believe so i think that all of our brave our line with mentos reasoning which is that the eleven eighty two eighty seven we go through the problems that you have to be in and telling immigrant you have to be it's not that it doesn't matter the plain language of the statue hungers wanted to wanted to do is written in the statute and it says that they could not be removed if they were  seven actually say that the panel didn't need to get to the question of whether or not this person had a permit permit because it wouldn't have mattered because that permit is not a permit issued by u s government the i in a contemplates that an individual  removed therefore those are also being negated if you will and so that's your position yes all right is it the second right but on the other hand it's not what's being done on the ground or scienter stand there and he says that you're seeing are the cases of individuals who are out of status and saying that even though they don't have to the government as a matter of loftily present and only for those for two years so all of this discussion about this exception ended in november of twenty seven november twenty seventh and twenty eleven when the exception was no longer valid counsel in your present without admission therefore he's in and tending immigrants seeking to be admitted to the grass and he needed some sort of valid document and i don't want to escape the attention of the court that this individual quote of advice for a transitional worker visa high for humanitarian parole even though the government was taking those applications to him for months before his removal order so they started taking that i see my time and my finish because your place thank you  didn't they began accepting humanitarian parole applications under the two programs in october and december and several times that the immigration judge gave a continuance in order for his attorney to explore these options and actually attorney sat looking into it were going to apply and he never did so this is an individual that had the opportunity to apply for parole had the opportunity to apply for visas anything he was eligible for but these individuals and one of the parole applications is in the record i believe that like you know one thirty five i believe one of the parole applications would not allow for somebody who was unlawfully present in before the question is to apply for anything they could not be sorry they could not be removed under a lot of they could be removed under any other provision of the immigration nationality so they could be removed and therefore it was no protection at all because the way you're reading a level eighty right that's right so the takeover happens and all of a sudden now all these folks don't have the word admitted or paroled by u s immigration officers so under a seven the government saying basically deported all of them right away before they had a chance to get a visa which is what because the attorney general's office abandoned trying to enforce the conditions that were attached to these permits and also explains the immigration judge that prior to the takeover the agent was within his power to issue these permits but after the takeover didn't have