section twelve fifty two to be sentenced and i don't remember the exact words of more or less that we don't have jurisdiction to review a the third rule is that the ultimate relief that the individual might be seeking for example in this case an adjustment of status is not a factor when determining whether or not those two preclusion rules apply the fourth rule is that the discretionary decision as you see it even if in fact as the father hasn't talked to him for five years or you know wouldn't give him the time of day those aren't the facts in this case however that i understand i just want to know what your position immigration judge found that it wasn't a particularly good relationship because after there was a death in the family the one immediate phone calls there's no expertise from the the government to determine what the relationship should be like and therefore you cannot inquire viewable discretionary determination the petitioner was not eligible for adjustment of status in the exercise because section two forty five is specifically listed under section two forty two a to be one of the immigration and nationality act as being the type of discretionary determination that specifically specified by this act as from spencer for a couple of reasons first of all spencer involves ultimately a visa determination which has specific statutory guidelines for determining whether the visa petition should have been granted in other words an individual meets the statutory criteria for this particular visa and it should be granted no further no further discretionary determination is involved that's what the court held in this particular case we have or a motion to reopen which doesn't have the same type of clear statutory criteria and underneath that we have a non reviewable discretionary determination understand action two forty five that petitioner is not eligible for cancellation of removal accordingly spencer is distinguishable from this case and in addition the court in spencer noted that you would exercise jurisdiction in cases where there is a meaningful cease and urged by which to to adjudicate the the underlying determination in this case will be the motion to reopen again  spencer the visa petition had very clear rules about when it could be granted whereas in this case the same type of criteria again don't exist because of the way the motion to reopen language is written in the immigration and nationality act furthermore i think it's important to note in this case that this petitioner had more than his full and fair day in court on this case the immigration judge was in fact so generous to petitioner that he position your honor is that there was no mistake of law made in this case petitioner got plenty of time to present enough evidence to basically overcome whatever impediments were present in his case he ha marriage which is primarily the type of case law that was played in petitioners brief the board case law on this type of petition is much less specific in terms of what can be following the marriage he has his mother testified that she was a hunter s by herself with petitioner the stepfather did not go with him the immigration judge her testimony that when he came back from hundreds he was almost an adult stepfather for only approximately two years after that he doesn't have an address for the stepfather he doesn't speak to his stepfather on a regular basis doesn't have a phone number these are the type of things that were heard by the immigration judge during this whole process and accordingly there was no abuse of discretion in this case furthermore petitioner shouldn't be allowed to circumvent the regulation at two forty two a to b of which again states that this court doesn't have review over an adjustment of status simply by filing a motion to reopen he doesn't get reviewed directly from the adjustment but he shouldn't be able to then file a motion to reopen and basically circumvent that bar by filing the motion to the extent that we have argued that the court doesn't have jurisdiction over the motion to reopen i'd like to point out that we don't the government is not reporting to say by the statute and was denied in the exercise of discretion grant this court granted a motion to reopen and in that sort of situation just really becomes an exercise in futility because ultimately it's base your discretion on the viability of the relationship if they're not legally separated the first not a permissible basis for exercising discretion and assume that's the case then why isn't it appropriate for us to have jurisdiction to deter whether in the actual size of discretion the i j a rely on a legally impermissible basis well again your honor it's not entirely clear from case zoom it's clear assume it's clear just i want to understand the scope of your argument i assume it's clear that the he should not have gone into the viability absolute proof that there was a legal separation is that i j relies on a legally impermissible basis exercising his discretion is your argument because it is discretionary at that layer that level well ultimately it his discretion we don't have jurisdiction to review well in a certain degree yet however this case was also reviewed by the board of immigration appeals that didn't you know directly go from the immigration judge one way or nowhere view and to this court where we say there's no there's no review it has again it has been reviewed fredricka if the i j applies an error exercise discretion on a sleeper b r a precedent and a b are you doesn't follow its own precedent we can't because both of those layers are quote discretionary we can't review well i would say that if both players had is going to be applied i mean our first argument would be you don't have jurisdiction because of the clear language of the statute i mean if the court is going to carve out an exception or find that there is some problem that that's certainly i received petitioners objection to my twenty jason mission just this morning i'd like to note however that there is part of a record attached to the filing that this court cannot review because it was not in the administrative records there's also a mention of temporary protected status in here which again was not part of the administrative record below of course if the court wishes additional briefing on the issue  determine under which section of law the the deportation order was issued discretion is not this cloak which the immigration judge of the board of immigration appeals can use to wrap around  items that are not legal that they can call of legal determination a discretionary determination to hide it from view of the courts here the board of the immigration judge and the board made clear legal error they considered not only amongst many factors but as the only factor a factor which is legally permissible they called a discretionary decision the migration act and the board of immigration appeals that does not bar this court from reviewing that so and let me just clarify what pocket that they weighed and we just instruct them to do that yes but we can't tell them what to do when they do that exactly so that's if they don't end up giving your client relief then you have another round of a