gomez class settlement and given this incredible contradiction in the settlement is also defined at two forty three federal subsecond ten thirty four given this contradiction we are left to tribunals in that the petitioner was seeking suspension which in part requires prior to the prior two amendments implemented that section two or three of the nicaraguan central american really fact in the a showing of seven years physical presence prior to applying for relief now we are starting that petition or could have been granted relief if allowed to proceed for individual hearing which was initially calendared for november fifth one thousand nine hundred seven prior to this court's decision and when however is that hearing was continued and heard relief deferred them shall we say but only permitted denials of relief by the immigration judges and the board in doing this the th issued on february fourteenth out of fear of three thousand nine hundred grants to that date prior even to the telling of how the quarter which is four thousand by year actually one time just ra well after that time and i don't think there's anything wrong with spot clock analysis for when in situation where i'm leading this court ultimately is to either remain to district court through the transfer statute for a hearing or or in the alternative remand to the board paper mandated back to the board in order to be paper in order to exercise to make a form in order to remain and in fact back to the department of homeland security after being remanded to an immigration judge for the purposes of they don't get replied to they don't get responded to i've had several cases that could have been repapered only if you had been admitted by the boards to spontaneously pen's on who was sitting on the board at that time the person not apply as a potential matter and so this court can be manned back to the government to consider repay prng i cannot proceed with my initial analysis thank you reduced leading my client's case who prior to ram could have been granted suspension to be recalibrated and for that reason it would make sense to manti district court for a factual finding as to whether or not the twelve twelve thirty seven thirty eight the first round gomez decision that the attorney general was busily lobbying to lobbying for the implementation of a cut off date by issuance of an order to show cause so on one hand rather than promulgating regulations she directs her delegates to issue directives to in violation of law to prevent grants while lobbying congress effectively to ensure that these cases that she questions are never to be granted notwithstanding that the laws that existed prior to ram could have on one hand in the chief prosecutor working feverish need to limit any interpretation of law on the other hand this court and as well the supreme court has noted that immigration judges in that that function within the act can't at the same time prosecute energy to kate and with that we'd like to reserve the reserve opportunity to resist to rebut the government thank you you have about fifteen seconds to do that counsel for the government underlying discretionary relief and therefore there cannot be due process issue in the sort of case and the court can't be more explicit about that in the munoz case which although it was a cancellation case discussed su observe is that regardless of anything else but it's not eligible and never has been eligible for suspension of removal or even cancellation of removal if you look at the immigration judge situation and then even look at the board's decision the immigration judge decided that he wasn't eligible for removal on a variety of bases specifically one of which was he had he didn't have he hadn't proven that he had seven years of presence in the united states between the time that he and he admitted that he entered the united states never contested that at any time so and then there's the good more character finding an extra between hardship finding and and then you get to the the finding that's based on the stop time rule all of those reasons are there and so regardless of anything else the titian was never eligible and has never been eligible in the is not currently eligible for suspension of removal or cancellation if you want to deal with it in due process terms there's no prejudice if you want to deal with it  in terms of whether there's some kind of error involved here or there simply is not so that's one hundred percent the dispositive of the case one way or another it also is dispositive of the reporting issue that's raised in petitioners reply brief for the first time  that i have some some other things i could talk about but i really want to ask the court if there's anything that i need to talk about i don't see any questions thank you for your argument  really the board's last detail decision is what this court must review and the board's decision denied the petitioner his appeal premised upon three hundred ninety five exclusively without dealing with other issues and finally