hell you cannot move to reopen a prior proceeding in a reinstated proceeding in a petition for review of a reinstatement what mr sillies did that's different from ours as here though is that he filed a direct appeal of the two thousand and four decision he's not seeking what we're asking about is you know we have statute that has certain language what do we do without language i mean you some trust us i mean maybe some way of interpretating it that we haven't heard about or that you can suggest we can say it's unconstitutional i mean in the reinstatement process when an alien has been previously removed and then say that it just says it says the prior order of removal is reinstated from its original date and is not subject to being reopened or reviewed it just makes  final and in the interpretation that we're seeking this court you reach which is is an influx is that it does not receive any aliens right to challenge based on a due process gross miscarriage of justice whether he's inside the united states outside or even was a procedure for which that petition i didn't avail himself which was a motion to reopen and that individual also subject to reinstatement i don't i don't i don't think i understood your answer to judge kozinski is question how do you want us to do what you want us to do if an individual was subject to removal proceedings he's reenter and he gets reinstated it doesn't vishy his right at any time if there was a gross miscarriage of just justice to be able to go back to the moment in time where his status was stripped in two thousand and four not in the reinstatement i understand greenstein is a streamlined process we're not going to do it at that venue we're not going to do it before the ice officer  what that individual needs to do despite have been in the united states or or outside is that he needs to correct that wrong he needs to go back to the results tell me where the gross miscarriage of justice service were and where does that occur in mr sleazes case is the fact that he was considered to be an aggravated felon and he was also deemed to be removable based on a farmer's offense those both of those grounds would not stand today the fact that his sentence was vacated he does not have a one year since he doesn't meet the definition of an aggravated felony and also based on changes in the law with regards to firearms he would not be deportable under any of the charges or on the notice to appear if he was before an immigration judge today and he fact would be reinstated as a lawful permanent resident would he have had any remedy from outside the country he would have you could have  motion to reopen just to say from outside the country without without coming in and reentering illegally yes based on the court's thought so once and once he knows that he can't come back into the country illegally and he comes back into the country illegally what are we supposed to do without him he's been   early for he's in fact been prosecuted for re entry and we're not justifying his conduct by coming in or not seeking either post conviction really from outside the country or even moving to reopen the fact that he was in the united states and was present as amended orders and the record vacated because the california had some doubts as to whether he had been properly advised by his attorney once he pled to the information i was although a lot less i think before the supreme court didn't think that there was much much to this since it was clear that he was advised by the defense and it was found that he was not advised of the migration consequences it's important to note that when he was suffered the conviction initially he was not placing proceedings it wasn't until after he was he went back for recency on a probation violation that a notice and that was was that that sentence was vacated your honor so the the the other issues that just briefly that i want to address is that i guess i'm still having a hard time understanding what is the gross miscarriage of justice i understood i understand that his conviction was vacated but it was it was vacated on what seems to be just a really a technicality doesn't seems like there was no prejudice there and the court the question the question was was he advised to california seem to think it was important that he would be advised by his own counsel rather than by somebody else's counsel that there were immigration consequences to the to the to the charge and that just doesn't seem like it even if i thought that there was maybe something procedurally wrong with that that doesn't strike me as a gross five all those of the didn't seem to be constitutional violations because they are in fact this is counsel right but he was advised by counsel he just wasn't he was just wasn't advised by his own counsel so why does that turn out to be a gross miscarriage of justice i think is unqualified there's no temporal restriction this is not just a bar to reopening the reinstatement proceedings which appears as what mr sources for years are mean there's absolute facts here as far as the procedure is concerned but instead of you know the underlying issue here is a conviction and whether it was a qualifying conviction let's say something more drastic than that let's say it is i guess what i can think of the most drastic thing of all is it turns out i'm been known to him he is a u s citizen and it's very clear there's no no real factual this person comes to the border and says i'm a u s citizen obviously he has no passport he has no u s passport because he can't give your spouse but he sort of a mover and says you know when they pull up his record have to start reading exceptions into it why is an exception the opposing counsel was just as good just look i you know that's all it was just wrong just plain wrong it's no longer it's not  avenues whether it be at well maybe other avenues but that's and it's this this isn't one of them this no it's it's not that the the way for such a person who was removed despite being a citizen would be to f also true that under twelve fifty two a two d that we that this court does have the power to review for constitutional statutory violations that's a pretty that's pretty that's pretty standard we have lots of language in the in the in the i and a that  seems like it's final and we have a way around that which is to say we get that we have to review for constitutional violations or for some kind of statutory interpretation violation ok so and haven't we also said that that there is a an exception and that the due process may be violated by a gross miscarriage of justice that's language that appears in a number of our cases counsel didn't just make that up opposing counsel didn't just make that up so yes she was she was drawing on a number of cases from of ours court's jurisdiction it's a bar on the board so the court can address whether that was a legal error or not to apply that reopening box mr sole regarding the gross miscarriage just the standard the he that that isn't conflict with with the reinstatement provision which says you don't get review now he had the opportunity to do it when challenge of reinstatement or would be kind of bootstrapping a one review or kind of feel that you think those cases are wrong they're not wrong for the contacts that they were in but the government's position is with respect to now a straight direct review of reinstatement order they would be and here that's not that that is not the case here here we are not on the judicial review of mr solmes as reinstatement order we are on the judicial review of  the village of it is judged based on the law at the time in the fact the california firearms offense was a removal of the crown at that time the had the aggravated felony ground