took the guilty plea and accepted the consequences and as he testified to before the immigration judge for the purpose of making for the purpose of helping his family for not extending the matter for not creating any more conflict within his own family is innocent and alfred i believe you're saying i am innocent but i'm not i'm i'm the difference being you're not saying i'm not innocent in africa you are saying i am innocent but i'm going to go ahead and accept the sentence or the  was that mr blanco had all the necessary equities but because he failed to accept responsibility as he had john in the state proceedings he was going to deny while working at that meeting that you know he failed to accept responsibility for his actions in immigration court when he had done so in criminal court he was not going to grant him the requested relief and that is in the last paragraph of the immigration judges decision  so that is correct your honor however in this case that didn't happen what happened was that the judge simply found that the under the facts the petitioner did not warrant a favorable exercise one of those factors was that he was did not appear to be accepting responsibility but that was not the only factor if you read the ideas opinion you find that he also noted the very young age of the victim he no d the fact that he the petitioner emitted that the victim did not entirely make up the story he admitted that he in fact had crawled in bed to her with her he admitted that that his own doctors had pointed out that he was in denial it was it's not a matter of whether or not the nature of the alford plea in the not itself is determinative of what the immigration judge should have done this is what the petitioner wants you to think however question of law this is a question of discretion and for example in in ramadan when they said well a question of law can be an issue of statutory just construction then you look at afridi and in that case they were presented with an issue of statutory construction the government didn't initially go along with that they were arguing something we were arguing something different but you had a term in the statute particularly serious crime that the court was being asked to interpret we're being asked the same thing and it's still a discretionary determination of the immigrant of the of the attorney general it's still beyond your scope of review it's still something over which you have no stiction because it's discretionary because you've already decided it because it's not a pure issue of of of law for those three reasons but as i said even if this court had jurisdiction and even if you can look at the i g is decision any and in your opinion it can go well we're going to reweigh the factors we don't do that would be improper but on the other hand we could say if you got a lot wrong we're going to remain around and you're going to have to reweigh the factors under the right legal interpretation and that would be our function that is part of what they're saying but that's not the end all of what the immigration judge did even assuming that that he based on wrong interpretation law and that if you read the immigration judge's decision he clearly understood what the  of that is perhaps a lack of accepting responsibility but other aspects of it are reviewing all the other facts and circumstances which this immigration judge does do it what the petitioner is trying to get this court to do and what the government is not trying to do is have the courts focus only on the nature of the alford plea the nature of the offer plea is the end all of everything if the court the immigration judge did not correctly interpret the alford plea then and accepted responsibility and