but we've asked for two forms of relief your honor so the parties are in agreement with respect to the premier and as to the reasonable fair determination the open question for this court is what's the appropriate remedy with respect to these errors and in addition to the remain and petitioner has requested that this court vacate the reinstatement order given the record that's currently before this court so it may be just the record have the prior order of removal and it it has a very fuzzy documents that the government says is the player or the rightful head we know that what that document is that's a very good question your honor and that's exactly why we've requested the relief that we've requested in this case because i don't think looking at that document there is a way for the government to meet their burden to this court of a stab wishing by clear and convincing evidence that that was the scan is in fact the prior order of a move will that the political to mister refresh my memory and i could have this confuses another case where the government tried later to get a more legible copy they did your honor so there is an extra record copy that was submitted by the government post briefing without any declaration or explanation as to where the document came from whether in fact it was reviewed by the hearing officer or why the copy that's part of the official record is a legible and of the document that was there was originally in the record but it's petitioners position that it doesn't matter which document you look at because ultimately we end up in the same place and i think the way to think about this is really this question of what martinez is before that immigration officer so we know for the reason for for the reinstatement fifty we know going in that the government has discretion that it can exercise when it wants to reinstate petitioners removal pr here used its discretion and elected to do the considerably more streamlined clacking more procedural safeguards option of having the review by the immigration officer and there's nothing unlawful about that we're not contesting that determination however once the government decides once the agency decides that it's going to use that review by an immigration officer to forty one point eight says there are only three things that officer has to conclude only three and this court has already expressed serious reservations about the lack of procedural safeguards in that procedure but one of the things we know that the government has to prove is that the immigration officer obtained and reviewed an actual copy of the removal order that they're a removal order so why are we worried about about whether this is the right copy because there are so few procedural safeguards that you want to make sure you're really instituting a removal proceeding to remove someone from this country and as long as everybody concedes there was such a document and and that that she was removed it seems to me sort of harmless to be arguing about it now and to be worried about whether there's an official stamp on here or whether there was the government submitted an affidavit that would have probably a friend think it is it because it's undisputed that there was such an order that is true in multiple cases that have been before this court where petitioners have been subject to various immigration proceedings there have been admissions directed missions such as it as india and way no direct admissions by the petitioner of the fact that the government's required to prove and that's been insufficient according to this court because the government has to prove they followed the policy and the reason that that's important your honor and the reason it's particularly problematic in this case is not just the fuzzy again it was just an issue of an illegible document that would be one thing but what we know is that when the immigration officer reviews this file  and the government has to prove that they were looking at and had a copy of that order in order to reinstate i don't know where that day came from but it's not petitioners now prove that i got i realize that but is there any way we can know which date or what or the immigration officer was relying on the government certainly hasn't proven that by clear and convincing evidence which they're required to do it and the fact that the panel has that question now is what is differen proceedings with respect and have an immigration judge present if the government could at that point establish using that procedure that they had grounds for removal that and obviously it's possible the petitioner would be removed the petitioner would have an option at that point  establish any relief that he may be eligible for but we are not asking for anything that the governor what happens if we don't issues that we're talking about one is the reasonable fear proceeding which is a precursor to getting the hear right so if they if they're reasonable fair is established then they'll be a full hearing before an immigration judge so that's one possibility or if this panel order is vacated then that he would be submitted for proceedings before and immigration and immigration judge in that instance if the reason there is vacated because the government already had an opportunity to use the other procedure and failed to do so in a way that respected the what do you envision that would be different it would go back to the asylum officer that issued the reinstatement order they would produce a more legible copy of the same document and they were reinstated again then mr serino it would go to reasonable for your interview declarations saying what this is and on its face it raises sim problems because it's stated it says the order of removal was january seventh one thousand nine hundred ninety eight whereas the reinstatement says it was june second two thousand and eight which really leaves a big question as to whether your officer handled this properly in the first place while you're honor i think all the parties agree that there was a prior move order we do concede that there is a date discrepancy now i to attend to it but but there is no man is going to write this well i think they did before your honor the reason why the copy is fuzzy is not because the copy was fuzzy before the asylum officer it's fuzzy because when the contractor that prepares us for the court discrepancy right i think it was entered in correctly and the computer system and the reason why i say that if you look at on page six of the test record that the court has before it goes subsequent check of c i s which is the immigration but they do have a lot of these cases have about four hundred thousand of them here so it keeps them very busy and i think that it was just a day error that was entered into the system in that just propagates because the order that the asylum officer had before it we don't we don't normally take documents not part of the record below on appeal well argued and really i am going to talk about kirk sobs i think they should never accept this well i think that they did i think the panel does have a good handle on the issue in this case and the important thing to remember is that this procedure has so few procedural safeguards that it is important to make sure that the ones that are in the regulations are actually followed and the government admits that even with respect to our request for not the tour be in statement order that there's really no harm to the government at all other that than some additional administrative bureaucracy which we would argue was caused by the agency in the way that this particular file was handled should be