that also involves jurisdiction with questions as well as questions about what the merits of the decision of the immigration judge of the idea in this case the be made a final relatively more detailed decision that it was two paragraphs long and therefore that is the decision that this court is responsible to consider the immigration judge in the be a denied mr q one protections and under the battered spouse act and found that there was three reasons why it should do it one was because he had a preconceived intent to come to the united states another because he worked without permission when he was invited states and the deny to not to not to deny him the ballots past protection that he was found by the department of homeland security to deserve and because none of them is a legal basis it may be because the purpose is they say you can't even get into whether the exercise was good or bad it was a discretionary decision you know jurisdiction yes but this court has said that when the discretionary decisions are contrary to precedent contrary to the statute and contrary to the to the law that the court then those discussion i decisions are not a valid basis to deny jurisdiction if your best case for that proposition well there is several cases suspension of deportation and adjustment of status and the immigration judge in that case said that because she wasn't living with her husband that they didn't have any jurisdiction to dive in the just for the status because of the child because it was a stepson step father relationship and they said that there wasn't a there wasn't a strong stepfather st marriage it wouldn't matter if if they married after only knowing each other for a short time and that happens to people and the fact is that because they stayed together for four years are examining the client and she said we don't need to go through those issues lengthy story that does not have to be told and won't need to be told yes well it won't have to be told if the court does not need to hear it or secondly there's a grant of by the spouse protection by i own copy back it looks like it's the application is approved yeah then we'll determine at the status quo whether or not testimony would be necessary and the service could be prepared to indicate what topics they would want to question she meant when she said summarize was just you're going to be asking him some questions mainly about this terrorism accusation and just just create a little bit of a predicate that he was married to this woman that he suffered in december to just ask a few questions and then move on to the guts of the issue which is whether the man is a terrorist and suddenly there is an f b i agent and a need investigator who are supportive to be coming to tell the court why he ask a few questions by chance or so you know i just at this point the fourth thing was my interpretation of her words ask a few questions would be in the in the context of setting a context for who the gentleman is just for making a record the way i of the time and bark issue i mean i literotica a lot about what i thought she meant and what she meant but the park issue is important for another reason and that's because in that in this case there was a very determined under a strict statutory scheme court to this court's also that it's views about the nature of evidence that there was a battered spouse finding and i was anticipating a scheme is the means which will be fun i wasn't anticipating as we miss you q one questions about the nature of his relationship with his next wife and the answer is you might want to ask a few questions just to summarize and then you can move on to the discretion in other words the burden of proof is still upon you shows a bonafide marriage you were cruising on the idea that the battered spouse thing was going to work because the regulatory and statutory scheme says that once that decision is made then that's it and for the immigration judge to come in to after that's all done and all the education is done twice and then say that stuff except that when you get the port and then they're subjected to a ten year bar from coming back to the united states so he could come back and because he didn't thousand and thirteen because he didn't get karanka carter that's right you can write in that as well hernandez versus ashcroft was the issue preconceived intent might be wrong one of the others that he shouldn't or was barred from using employment without authorisation and the board's own decision a matter of the board decided that  findings by c i s that of you know on the i three sixty that it was a bona fide marriage the board is just saying that it's just quoting or finding that there was a woman he barely knew for now there is no good evidence that it was to facilitate normalization but the other part that as a woman he barely knew is just that in light of the fact that there's evidence that lots of evidence that it's a bona fide marriage to say that he barely knew at the time he married or isn't is not is a silly reason to say that somebody shouldn't be allowed to just that's when they're a battered spouse lots of people marry people they know for a short period of time and they have firstly i don't think i mean i understand that she says that but it's also true that there's nobody in the immigration world who could have said with any degree of certainty that if you enter i quote was using her to obtain lawful permanent residence in addition to not paying taxes and working with that authority so if she comes in and exhibit fifty east and says he was using well trying again immigration status she she was a disturbed ill woman and then the record bears that out the things that she did to him psychological evaluations of her in the record she was a bad person and she lied to do things to hurt him and she lied to keep him under her thumb and she told him if you leave me i'm going to go to the government and i'm going to make up stuff about you and get you in all kinds of trouble and by golly he left her and she told i can say this for a fact that i got lost driving up there and i have hundreds and hundreds of people telling me that they got like this they will serve i'm sure they listen to like conversations with him when he calls me on the phone but the discretion was exercise discretion based on factors prohibited to regulate the review in all those cases was abuse of discretion i mean that's those cases were decided when the court could review the discretionary decisions that i was afraid act which is actually consistent with the court's review before the real i d act the court can look at legal issues and constitutional claims but of course our position here is there are no no colorable legal issues  standard and you know for example if it's supposed to be exceptional and extremely unusual hardship the judge says well you know i don't like the outfit you're wearing today or you know departs from the application cannot in the exercise of discretion look at the issue of whether the petitioner entered the marriage in good faith that was the judge's decision and that was the particular decision about marriage and that was exactly what the board affirmed in the exercise of discretion of course the judge can look at that i mean it absolutely strains credulity he to to make that claim i'm sorry to say it but it's true that a two step process i think is the court well knows any kind of adjustment first you do your adjudication that's under eleven fifty four in this case the document had to be filed was that i see three sixty in regular marriage cases where the person doesn't self petition it's the i one thirty there's a second step to that and that's what happened before the immigration judge and the second step is the adjustment of a status that's hundred twelve fifty five the requirements of twelve fifty five are simple and what they include it when asked to make the application but number two is the important one the judge has to determine whether the alien is eligible to receive immigrant visa the judge has to make a second determination whether the alien is eligible to receive that immigrant visa that's what the judge has to do it to say that much more complicated process and therefore is in part a little more definite maybe conclusive forms but no certainly know that i would have obviously disagree with that your hon or because because i was saying it's a two step process and it's no different whether it's an i want thirty or night three sixty the petition the fisa petition whether a petitioner applies for a beneficiary or whether  someone who claims to be battered petitions for themself that's under eleven fifty four then you have the adjustment under both time no matter what the petition was they both are adjusted under twelve fifty five feet into the same me yes your honor so therefore it doesn't it doesn't make a difference that the courts for two prior decisions which in congo in two thousand and four and argument in two thousand and two those were i want thirty decision but i think it's just a practical matter that because i just because it's different agencies in short that i three sixty wasn't the approval of these the petition was done by a department of homeland security one division and digests decision is the executive office for immigration review and practically i guess that d h has doesn't go back and revoke that petition which was granted it's still out there  incorrect the statute requires if you go to cairo that i'm sorry the regulations require that the consulate in cairo make the determination practically speaking are that's why immigration council want to have their clients just say here instead of going abroad because the consulate doesn't just take it and say ok well to get us granted it so we're giving you an immigrant visa they do their own i don't think we cited in our brief nothing in this section eleven fifty four is the section about the visa petitions so that's the first step chest it nothing in the section shall be construed to entitle an immigrant classification that so that's another step if they get there would be so proud the consulate has to review that determination when they get to a port of entry here the immigration inspector looks at that again and the fact is this i may continue just briefly i see that i'm out of time but for me thank you your honor this there is there was no evidence in practical terms just looking at this case this case is a good example of why the judge must be able to look at that factor for example that new evidence before the immigration judge that was not before the adjudication section in the application package the petitioner c n n there were four levels of it  young and ambitious everybody does you know they do and there's nothing wrong with that your honor except it's harlem you fact but you know but you know your honor and that's certainly i don't blame them at all but but he's it's for example it's not the sort of situation the someone came here as a visitor and they met someone and fell in love and then wanted to stay i mean people do have lives at home secondly the fact that he met his wife only three that he married his wife only three or