ineffective assistance of counsel might have the immigration department has mishandled his case arms from the very beginning he was unconstitutionally picked up and illegally taken exclusion and a suppression hearing regarding the evidence resulting from the above wrongful deportation would take place there and if he was successful in winning the i j a at some point in these proceedings talked about what now that the circumstances of change will let you raise that claim about the supposedly unconstitutional arrest now you said that that ins moved to terminate deportation with the intent to initiate exclusion proceedings because now he didn't pick up coming back after this being hustled out of the country at least by your client's  ok and so at that point you'll get a chance you're saying to raise the issue you'll get a chance to raise the issue of the supposedly unlawful ar eligible for me i missed that in the record i must admit this is a very very confusing record but it would be very helpful if you could give me an excerpt of record cites to support what you just said because i that's the first i've ever heard would really be helpful to me he attempted to reenter with a false documents right and if we were to and i don't know if we have the authority to do or not but order the whole illegal entry and a separate criminal offense when he paid two hundred dollars for faults document and then try day use it to gain entry at the otay mesa right of entry the only reason he had to do was because he had to come back a different way he could have done it he could've called his lawyer and said i'm in mexicali or t awana i shouldn't be here the lawyer could have obtained an order so that he could have been paroled into the united states in order to return to immigration court but instead he resorted to self help and it's sympathetic as i am your client's position how helped me get over what i view as a fairly difficult legal hur i can't i don't have the power that the executive has to you know pardon him for that offense well if he would have come without getting caught and then it just would have happened but if that means that we have to just forget about the fact that he committed this other violation in the middle of this whole well that could be taken into consideration after he's got his oppression hearing and  pending hearing anything yanked off the street and again i'm just taking their characters ation and deported across the border so now he's pulled out of the lawful process before iraq comes along and changes the we'll have a hearing on it and i will deal with that and i'm looking at the record apparently the earlier panel of the ninth circuit was told the same thing we're going to let him get a chance to argue that but it has to be in the proper form ok so at the end of the day he doesn't wind up getting that hearing that i j saying well i can't do it now i'll give you hearing on the circumstances of your arrest on the reentry but he never gets that hearing even if in fact let's just assume factually understand it is disputed by the government that he was in fact racially profiled pulled off the street by the border agents and hustled out of the country so now he's been totally moved out of the that what motivated the government to ask the i j a to terminate the deportation proceedings so if we go back to medieval beans point which is essentially i guess a pulse graph argument that but for the fact that he was illegally removed a few days before he made the attempted reentry in november of one thousand nine hundred sixty this would never have happened he wouldn't have had to challenge the terminations of the deportation proceedings and therefore we should put him back in the same position that he would have been in order to preserve the status quo and give him a is properly in exposure deportation at an exclusion hearing that's a ruling in two thousand race seems to assume that based on the ins representation he has an opportunity to litigate the issues wrote a disposition without taking up this issue found it didn't have jurisdiction as a result of arriving that's how this court understood the representation of the line outs and that's what clear cut we don't have jurisdiction or any circumstance if there is some due process colorable due process applying and there are cases where we have exercised your searching to look at the client and whether the panel intention to lose and not actually instituted is not correct that's correct ok so you're saying that he had a firm commitment that if he at that point waived his   we are taking it under some measure just as it sounds to the panel as we're not excited about getting last minute filings and changing the landscape as to what is at issue here and getting into the impact of summary judgment arguments and so i don't feel you have to spend a whole lot of time on that looks argue the case as it was fostered in the district court although we're mindful that the landscape is changing so you an