persecution without assistance of counsel he sought to reopen its removal proceedings in hopes of at least having a chance to avoid becoming yet another victim of the worsening humanitarian crises gripping that region  know are do we have any information now in all of the government the same thing is whether either sudan or south sudan are taking people being removed from the united states we do not care what legal question are we know jurisdiction over criminal alien removals certainly we recognize that this court does not have jurisdiction to consider whether in fact mr a show changed circumstances but under this court's precedent board gave appropriate consideration is a question of fact but it's plain as day on the face of this decision that the board can see heard it so if that's the limits of our jurisdiction this issue it's not an issue of ignoring it the issue was plainly not ignored it wasn't overlooked it was addressed and you know we can quarrel about whether the board gave it adequate consideration and we can quarrel about the content of the consideration but it's clearly there are two spaces there are in the order respectfully this court's presidents have found that it is legal error for the for the b s a not to give adequate consideration to evidence of  circumstances and the only thing we've considered claims that the board ignored something in other words overlooked it didn't address it you know it's not their right this is that they mean there is a they are there w on quote summarized evidence and arguments but it rejected the motion to reopen without a quote adequate analysis of the record and simile and teaching need to be a quote catalogue the luminous evidence presented in support of a motion to reopen but nevertheless as courtly man did because it's one and a half page explanation was still considered an adequate and certainly those decisions were inadequate to allow this court of confidence to be actually considered mr r the as that's certainly the decision the relevant consideration is whether he showed adequate change circumstances to avoid the ninety day limitation on a motion to reopen change circumstances isn't his basic argument that he is the north because he's a thinker right that would be in the south in south sudan the ethnic conflict between dingos and yours in the north and north to that he faces the prospect of persecution because he's a christian he wants to go evidence that it could reopen and there would at least be the opportunity to correct any issues with the country that specified in the notice of removal it's not entirely clear whether mr rush was given the opportunity to designate his  it's not been litigated people on appeal certainly it was not addressed because again the v a i'm sure this is so confused you'd think he would indicate which sudan send him to south sudan it decided that his motion to reopen was on time and so at this point barring relief on appeal it does appear that based on the notice of removal could be removed to sudan which again is not his country the one reason that the court gave for denying certainly we recognize there might have been other available bases upon which it could have ruled by their available one if there were other bases upon which to be a might have been able to spose of his motion to reopen but the one that  was there that's where he because petitioner did never claim to be a citizen of south sudan when he came from south sudan correction your honor he was born in south sudan but he was moved as a child to north or down by his parents according to his claim and i will also point out that on his waiver of exclude no that would be in fact i've actually your honor asked a question about who removed what countries we do remove people to sudan or d h as does currently rupie people to sudan but they do not currently remove people to south sudan so hopefully that's why i don't understand of his would be much safer in south sudan and the and the immigration service just hasn't it's not a plot to find out what that might be true and it's not important in this case because petitioner has not been ordered removed to south sudan not at issue but maybe these to be safer in south sudan in which event that's where he should be removed to right he has never claimed that he's a citizen of south sudan the age he did that's because he left the country before the country split up correct he would be difficult for him to claim he's a citizen of south sudan without i mean i don't know what south sudan is doing about its own citizens hips these days but we would probably need to find out when we will removal proceedings took place after the countries that split yes but he left the southern area of what was then the unified nation  think i didn't say he has nothing to argue well he has nothing to argue right now no i don't believe me right now but something he'll argue later in the court doesn't have jurisdiction to review what has been argued i didn't say he's not entitled to stiction here because the criminal alien bar has kicked in a criminal alien bar at section two forty two a to c of the immigration nationality that there's no dispute that it's applicable and as you're all if you would be safer in south sudan isn't that where he should sent not if he is not a citizen of that country and he is never gonna be a citizen of that country if they accept him why would it matter whether he was just sentenced that hasn't been litigated he never claimed to be a citizen of south  for get this citizenship youth you can't just get removed to any random country unless there's it's not random country i know it's where he was born and where he may be a good deal safer than in the north  he conceded that he was a citizen of sudan you keep talking about us citizenship are you saying that that we can only deport a person to a country where he's a citizen now if you think you can only remove him to where the removal order authorizing him to go you're such it and he can see technically look there's a trial don't understand the human aspect of the case that all of course that this is a person who may be a good deal safer in south sudan whether he's a citizen or sasa tan or not would only be a portman if somehow we have a rule that we can only deport pe country of their citizenship which is which we do not have such your honor he has never claimed to be a citizen of south sudan you can see the truth it is an understanding i do understand you know you don't do it doesn't have all forty but they but they but if we were to remain and the question could be revisited so mr robbins could i ask you to address the jurisdictional issue and particularly the authorities in petitioners brief i think it's around page twenty six and no sixteen in which we seem to have treated similar questions as ones over which we had jurisdiction you're referencing the cases and saying and me and braces and cabaye yes all of those cases are not applicable you're doing better with the names than i am so all of those cases are relevant because all of those cases in those cases the court was looking at whether or not the board abuse its discretion that's not the case in this case you're barred from looking at abuse of discretion in this case because of the criminal alien bar so the rationale of all those cases was essentially this the court was saying our job interview is to determine whether the board abused pression and if the board doesn't provide sufficient explanation or adequate explanation of what it's doing with the evidence we can't do our job and reviews of the legal error th case called curious against holder the talk about this in essence look this is we wrote that this line between legal questions which we can review discretionary factual determinations that we cannot can be difficult to draw here and the end of the site of that is six thirty four we have third at nine twenty eight  d given the virtual silence about mister erosions evidence and what we know are dramatic changes with respect to your question it seems there are a couple of things there first with respect to drawing the line between between whether that's a legal question or a factual question i don't think it's a very difficult line in this case because as cites noted the evidence was considered so the only question that's left is how the evidence was considered and i think it's quite clear that that's a factual question and it just sort of if you follow it through logically suppose you accepted petitioners argument and we made it saying that there weren't  or just leaving a closed will if you don't want the difference i suppose if you didn't read the substance of it that would be overlooking it but there's no indication that that was the case here the court the the the board clearly consider the substance of it because the talk about south sudan even though he wasn't you were to accept just his argument and say that the board legally are here because its decision was insufficient what would happen it would go back down the board would presumably say ok we'll give a better explanation as to why we did this it would come back up and you would be in the exact same position you're now just a few brief points on rebuttal your honour's eight twelve fifty two eighty two to reserve jurisdiction over legal questions in joseph just hamilton you wrote that is a legal question to consider whether the consider all relevant evidence of change circumstances and we submit that backwash previous court now and in titles mr rush to relief furthermore i know there's a lot of question as to the  right country of removal the whole point here is that reminding to the b i a first to finally consider with an analysis of the evidence of change circumstances we think will entitle mr rush to reopen his removal proceedings and we cited several decisions in our national brief of the b s a that upon reopening the proceedings can correct the extent there was an error in the designated country of remove all and again that's one of the added benefits of remanding this case the court has any further questions so he doesn't want asylum no he does yes that i just mean that one of the added benefit to may be to correct but certainly that the purpose his main purpose in reopening is to be able