petitions review before this court and certainly the question of must be decided in resolving that issue is whether the challenge that has been brought by the petitioners case involves the discretionary determination by the board of immigration appeals or whether issue involving more character the court there is that that if that involves a person category determination about good moral character that the court can certainly assume jurisdiction over that matter but that if the issue regarding more character addresses immigration court can impose a requirement for police clearance letters where that requirement is not found in the language of the particular regulation that impacts that decision the controlling regulation here is for everything really come down from different directions to the question of whether they're announcing a blanket rule of clickable cases or exercising their discretion with regard to the facts of this particular case yes or that's the issue and i urge the court to look at the decision whether by the board  making that decision of the court finds that because of the facts presented in this case that the immigration judge simply made a discretionary decision to request a police clearance the certainly the court will like restriction because it would become discretionary matter for the board to resolve but that's not conclusion that the police clearance letter was required at footnote seven the government argues that even if that's the case and from that statement it is difficult to dispute because the just concluded government argues that even if that's the case there was no harm here made by the image gratian judge and the question then becomes what was the determination and the determination was that the police clearance was required by the instructions incorporated into the regulation person into that particular called section and that's a problem in this case because none of the three point two of those not incorporate that requirement the resolution is clear with regards to what is required of an individual like miss is almost zero to do in the case which is that's what she must appear to  asked processing center for fingerprints she has to provide her fingerprints to the government in order for the department of homeland security to conduct its own criminal background search and that is found at one of three point two  decisions was extraordinarily blunt and candid in saying i don't believe a word the applicant sounds and she got nothing else to tell me that she's a good moral character so she can have good moral character i can make that finding clearance the only other thing we know about is that there's reference to an additional witness the name we have no idea what it was an additional witness my psych but otherwise right now there's a vacuum with regard to how things on her past supporting the proposition of good moral character considered all of the evidence that the responded to the petition in this case attempted to present and that was new to the issue of the witness if the immigration judge had made a determine every turn a fine based on his discretion discretionary fine or regarding good moral that the police clearance letter was required to show good moral character that there was absolutely nothing that that witness could say that would change his mind given that it was required for her to produce that police clearance letter and certainly that is the plane the argument and i conclusion that the immigration judge imposed a requirement that was beyond this part there's action that i would like to know for the court that when congress doesn't pending police clearance letters to be submitted congress has said police clearances are without the police clearance letter the judge could not find and would not find good moral character the first decision response directly to the issue of the due process issue involving the imposition of that requirement as the entire decision rests only with that issue and the grief also mentions the fact that the immigration judge did not allow the petitioners counsel to influence or to advise the court about why that police clearance letter was not has admitted that she was in jail once and i was five years to it because apparently she had no education on the record and to differ with judge question i don't think there's a vacuum here i think it scales actually shift against her the evidence on the record here show contrary to her application for suspension of deportation here where she claimed that she was never convicted of a crime and was never charged never arrested so that right there was a just balance of the i j a focused on so he did require her as as required by instructions incorporated in the reg and then he says although the respondent admitted she was in jail lines that's five years ago because the fight with her sister so therefore i find that she walks good moral character he failed to establish so i mean i'm still left with the idea that someone ambiguous i mean they basically you could require you to produce additional documents and then it says it also does it is recommended that you produce a police clearance water so what i think the idea was or her lawyer would you tell her before him from reading those instructions that if she didn't bring in a plea there she would automatically be you know full well if i were her lawyer and i knew that that was her sole conviction was for a one day records and things like that she did so she selectively chose not to produce police court so we would argue that you know she should follow the rights for up to a point but in this case we don't consider so  response to this argument in this entirety counsel talks about a lengthy brutal about eight it's actually more like eleven torpedoes but there are issues regarding time good more character and hardship that are outside of the scope of this case but nevertheless that issue was raised and in response the government's argument set forth in the briefs the response very specifically to the issue regarding good moral character and he could have been addressing it as part of their discretion and of really answer