proceedings and the most important things to keep in mind in this case are the principles of due process and fairness fundamentally the p i a s decision presupposes that mr garcia was  case with the understanding that mr garcia is illiterate even if it is out language and he is mentally challenged it is clear that mr percy here was railroaded by evil process that he had no ability to contend with and someone ask enforcement officials telling him sign side sign so you can go home he's got no ability to know what he's signing or even if he did have the ability to read any of it is he has severe mental  the th seven and th circuit's holding that someone in mr all far of garcia's situation is not permitted to file a motion to reopen what do you say about those case and that section operates to bar any review for any area and that's been ordered deported and his sense reentered the united states without any permission now what makes m different from all of those other cases is that at the time of his motion to reopen and at the time of his appeal to the the apartment of homeland security had not in fact only reinstated his w from his order of removal was regular forli prevented from being reinstated until mr garcia was given the benefit of what's called the reasonable  fear screening or the reasonable fear review and that's a procedure whereby the government assesses whether the alien has any reasonable fear to return to his country due to persecution sort of evil characteristic of his  now when mr garcia was arrested in two thousand and eighteen by the h s he was very quickly process and then tendered over to the united states marshals for prosecution for just that very issue either way and they did not complete the reasonable fair procedure in his case and because they did not complete the reasonable fair procedure in his case with the h s though they did far out a notice of inten and it states that they're after on june the th mr garcia was ordered removed now the reason that it's june th is because mr garcia had a thirty day his motion to reopen would have been filed and i apologize but it would have been at the i believe it was june of two thousand and eighteen and i'm sorry top and that's the correct  outstanding reasonable fear procedure that had not concluded the d h s s was legally barred by its own regulations from reinstating his removal order until he had fully completed also so any argument that there was some sort of does it give money or allowances so i guess my question is why would that be preempting why is that language not necessary what does it have to do with anything else being arms so it actually mr garcia and we went further deep into that specific point in his appeal to the b ira in that appeal to the b a a we do discuss the regulations that state quite clearly that regardless of any a reentry no alien can be pursuant to international law and are treaties against ending people back to countries where they could be tortured or killed no indian can be removed even by statutes and there are other abbey as well as a matter of fact your honor it because the way that mr garcia was deported he was deported by stipulation and in that stipulation wit that your right to appeal is way if that stipulation is actually valid then that's a valid waiver so in essence there really is no other avenue for mr garcia to proceed under except you go back is correct your honor and and there are regulations that specifically stating that you cite the men are greek and it's not it's not our intent to sort of howard this is a one shot or nothing you know just the right of asylum is not in and itself an avenue to reopen it's actually an independent basis for really but in essence whether or not the motion to reopen was jurisdiction we preempt it yes is it is the primary issue before the sport for the reasons that we cite in  so you go through the reasonable fear determination your honor that that specific regulation was discussed but not but not specifically at hand at this moment i don't but it is it is stated in mr garcia's appeal to the he area and there is an argument there it states that he could not eat of his right to have a reasonable fear of years prior to reinstatement and in fact the b i a reasonable fear determination was completed no your honor but more more generally and broadly our argument is directed towards whether or not gave any credence  that the government has enact eally when you can reinstate an initial rule or when the alien has made a whether or not these new petitioners reasonable fear proceedings wrong go mill matter whatsoever in fact that you see this response like you may be right but i'm trying to get a handle on this whole scheme and so i question to you is not whether you win or lose on that point but simply whether or not there's a regulation that tells the service that it has to finish out a credible fear determination before discussing that what question was not was it was not allowed to reopen a rule order because they entered the country illegally after having been removed but it are i think i think the other point that that should be made is this was also made by the board and their decision in humans provided the initial reasonable fear interview and who didn't indicate i think what congress was attempting to romney can i ask you a question mr spurlock and i this question does not deal with the facts of this case but again i'm trying to get a handle on this entire scheme that he says hold on hold he says he says that the order of reinstatement did not occur until after he filed his motion  in deportation orders and that is the argument they were making and that is the circumstance that mr garcia does allege was present at his case being unable to read being unable to read the stipulation that he signed having no counsel no immigration judge impartial tribunals to explain to him what he was doing at the time and no representation and then the regulations governing stipulations for removal of very clear that when an immigrant is not represented an immigration judge must make a determination that stipulation is signed knowing intelligent voluntary manner and although integration judge's order does play lip service to that regulation there is no evidence in the record at all that that term nation was made based upon any observation of the immigration judge or mr garcia it was never a hearing and most certainly he didn't have the benefit of even hearing that he had the or is it just have an immigration know your honor it's not our position that he must have council in order for a border to be but what we are saying is that if there is no attorney then the immigration judge by its own  just to dovetail on one final point that the government the government just raised the government did just say that as a portion of that reinstatement procedure the government does have to make a  garcia's case that procedure was cut short because again he was transferred to the u s marshal service to be prosecuted and they did so before they had complete they had fully completed the process and just to the gist of the the timing difference those those cases are all on point except except in so far as they do not address respondents that did not have a completion of that process  wasn't until he had him act into his custody that they hate late couple of months just to just to figure out that they had to complete that process and when they eventually did complete that process then the and eighteen that that you think is a different document not the final order of reinstatement well the regulations themselves i am not aware of any regulation that says that  notice of intent is the last step in the process and even if it were it couldn't have been efficacious and they not completed all of the necessary steps in that reinstatement process one of which is the government concedes w