opinion the may twenty first two thousand and three decision of the immigration judge to revoke you signed on status of the petitioner and his family it's our contention that the immigration judge lacked jurisdiction to reopen their case and revoke hundred five granted asylum let me ask you something about that let's assume that the change of status proceeding had been completed is there any question the i j a would have had authority to handle regulations provide so why did it not make sense for the director to stay the proceedings and let the i j a determine the fraud issue that could possibly happen but no decision was ever made by the district director in fact up until the present time yes i mean i understand you're making that argument trying to see whether the as i recall the i j a said that doesn't really make sense and makes more sense to to proceed and we can get to the technical issues later but what i'm saying i adjustment of status was revoked and the adjustment never had any duty cation on the merits and there was no ability to renew that adjustment application before the immigration judge secondly the regulations do not provide for  the district director to be ignored when soldiers stiction is clearly vested with the district director and for the government to come in back to the immigration judge directly with a motion to reopen and revoke the asylum status while you status application was still pending with the district director which is in fact what happened so most strongly we would assert that there is a jurisdictional issue which is in our estimation very clear in the regulation motion to terminate filed before the immigration judge setting out the fact that it was petitioners position that the immigration judge had no jurisdiction to revoke the asylum it of course was denied an immigration judge went on and made a ruling but nonetheless it was  that it can be quote renewed before the immigration judge so if the district director never makes an adjudication it can never be renewed before the immigration judge and in fact that deprives the petitioner of a form of relief that could have been together to get to the place you want to be let me ask you where should the government if the government is advice to fraud where should the government have gone with the should they have the district director was free to deny the adjustment of written but they don't they're not worried about the adjustment of status the government is concerned because he's grant has been granted a benefit already under fraudulent circumstances so the government wants to challenge that so where does the government go they're not worried about adjustment of status they want to say that it was never entitle to any status and you had to leave the country so what did they go well the drugs never been established in the evidence asserted by the government was not sufficient to prove the fraud i understand my argument i've read your brief and i'm not sure i agree with it but where should the government under your interpretation the regulations to challenge the original grant  because the government now believes it was fraudulent ultimately to the immigration judge which you mean the place they did go to the immigration judge prematurely yes it's the correct forum the immigration judge would have had jurisdiction had the government first obtained the denial from the district director which was not done anything that we had to go to the immigration judge you suggesting they should have gone to the district director and asked the district director to point the government is not free to ignore the jurisdiction of the district director and go back to the immigration judge they are ignoring the regulations now the congress regulation does exist under its if are twelve forty two point two a one c which gives the immigration judge soldiers direction also over an adjustment of status which is pending with immigration judge so the regulation in our mind is clear if it's with the district di didn't wait for the director to make a decision then have the energy to make the same decision well i mean the regulations are there for in effect is that what you're asking is yes yes and the regulations are there for a reason the government is not free to ignore that and certainly the regulations are enforced against the petitioner if they're appropriate and it's not fair for the government to pick and choose which regulations it wants to follow that ignore the jurisdiction of the district director and go back to the immigration judge  entitled to it so for the court seems to be focusing on the jurisdiction one of the two issues that was raised by the petitioner i think some of the questions indicate a skepticism about the petitioners bulis and certainly our view is that there was no error whatsoever in the immigration judge taking jurisdiction over the the aliens case and some of the regulations that he depends on fact seem to support the government rather than the contrary for example one zero zero three point two three b one entity so it does not help him similarly twelve forty five point two cited in his brief he has authority to the immigration judge not the district director to adjudicate adjustments when an alien is in proceedings now what happened in this case is a little unusual because of the flood so it didn't necessarily follow exactly the same trajectory that most similar cases might be here when there was reopening that reopen thing put the alien back into proceedings and therefore it would be the situation that's that that may be so because it's kind of unusual but i think that the fact is so where where where you immigration judge reopen and the first regulation that i cited seems to say you know that's not only yes he can be open here she can be open it was not contemplated that would be the director's writing would have to complete the the regulations assume that the immigration judge has precedence which makes logical sense because if the person is going to be deported why would we be worrying about these other applications you know collateral that's going on that well i think we discussed that that in fact what's canada now from resettlement under the regulations not only bars son it's a reason for it mandatory to nial of the style but it's also mandatory denial get the regulations to make it work better subpoena you know what's going on but every time we get them there's a need for another one or the theory is i understand that they too opposition is pushing for would be the type of the three we would have if the district court handled the case and it went up on appeal to to the court of appeals there's very few things a district court can do produce jurisdiction has gone and that's the argument that because it's over with the district director nothing can happen but that i'm not sure that particular philosophy fits the immigration process under his theory which you should have done is go over to the district director have the matter referred back to the immigration judge then the immigration judge could handle the process because that jurisdiction was only with a district director problem how do you respond to it why didn't you know better practice well now that it's been reopened i can't even ask you that at this time to better practice perhaps and i'm not even sure it's necessary but the question is whether it's better practice is it mandatory you know that's the real issue that we have of the adjustment application in this case your theory is one where there's just one piece of jurisdiction this in this court and that court your theory if there's one jurisdiction but it's in the immigration process as a decision so it has three different approaches to this question one was that the supporting documents you know once once you see that statements of the petitioners were  country other than india and they said no and then of course it came out that they had this resettlement in canada ok so because of that they couldn't basically carry their burden of proof and that was one reason another reason was that it was appropriate to take an adverse inference from their failure to testify and so that could be added to the other points to show that they would not have been it's never been proven what landed immigrant status is in canada there's been a bald assertion that it seems lawful permanent resident status in the united states there was no government expert there was no canadian expert there were computer print outs they were linked by name there's no explanation what that means or what it means before the immigration judge and that's the basis for the quote lies and fraud that the government wants to use as evidence to show that the petitioners were not eligible there's a lack of evidence on that point and it was not sufficient for the government to use it for the immigration just relying on its reopening will you say did you say there's no evidence computer printouts with no foundation laid at all as that was my question my question was are you saying there is no evidence or that the evidence is insufficient it's inadmissible insufficient ye