the presumption of judicial review under the ministry procedure act is very strong it can only be overcome by clear and convincing evidence that congress intended either expressly or implicitly to preclude judicial review over specific administrative final specified that the action to be in the discretion of the attorney general i would note this is what i would call the intervening case law that distinguishes my case this case from the admittedly eight circuits who have rejected our position five of those come before a case called q comma which is the supreme court's most recent analysis of this provision in footnote ten of that opinion they are in turning  to be two and the highlight of the importance of the word specified in the plain good plain language in statute they said specified is defined as to name or state explicitly which means it's not to be assumed not contemplated not implied fifty five the language you're talking about may for any time good and sufficient cause for this court to find that a low fifty five does not provide additional standards that they can apply if you have to overrule the president of this court that's in judicially it provides usual standards to look at this revocation and this court did look at the revocation there and so to find that this that there are no judicially applicable standards here this court is and will have to reverse the prior panel well it is what what was your honor i would point to the language in the dissent in the most recent assertion of the st certain bernardo where the judge identifies these eight cases as quote a cascade of precedent right and that they are all based on each other they all came very very quickly and that there is a good scholar ship out that says that should weigh less in favor of this position because it was just a pilot on and that he identifies the one case to come  that and i'll just point out the reason why is the structure obstetric st off the plain language says has to be specified you can't read that word out of the statute the structure again twelve to a to be one identifies fire different decisions that are precluded from judicial review and every genre so when it's uses the word specified it's informed by the fact that all decisions just above it that are expressly precluded from additional review actually used the word discretion and again i footnote ten i be well i would suggest you shouldn't come and and they apply the good and sufficient cause standard in that case without issue i would also point you to all of the cases in the th circuit where they've been reading or this preclusion is the government's urging it does preclude all challenges constitutional challenges and legal challenges and that makes it even heightened standard that we have to demonstrate from congressional intent to to preclude all review of all things that maybe the secretary you know discretion might consider to be a reason not to get it they are required to disclose that and i'm not sure what happened in this case as to why ellie now he did not disclose facts but that didn't happen and that's why i didn't they since he didn't do it or if they see it ran out because of it it seems to me foreign agencies decision was part of the record that they were very clear that they did not does the same thing does not give it to him i don't know maybe it's not there because the other side with it they would bring it up but i'm just curious if you know because to me i'm not sure what that does in terms of jurisdiction but it certainly does indicate the secretary has already you can't treat people differently you've already done this that implies at least makes a very statement the secretary did not find good in sufficient cause and therefore did not exercis into the context of a petition for review from or who've overstating so therefore the appellant that hell is interpretation of the statute does not actually preclude judicial review of our constitutional claims because appellate could at any on well i think that that important part of this case is that this is a discretionary no rest determination that was made because he has a qualifying of facts and he doesn't challenge that and under and i think all it is controlling in this case and constitutes good and sufficient cause is to be applied in the secretary's discretion is not a legal standard in and of itself to be applied by the court and it does not undermine them and at any time language that signif respect to the th circuit who has found a good and sufficient cause standard can't be used to impugn judicial  because congress hasn't clearly and convincingly said that they are completely preclude my opponent stood up here i should say governing council stood up here and said that we can challenge the petition for review that's wrong absolutely think the government is arguing here is that they are not arguing they're preventing all constitutional challenges right they're saying no no we're channelling it which is a different concept right that's that's what the  statut and a petition for review is limited to the issues that they all rushed over it's limited that's what the authority congress skate on when you're basically just identifying what congress did talk to or don't have direct we don't have jerked a judicial review over everything the review the components that lead such as they do miles of these attacks i would suggest that has been answered and it's very clear this court does not and so when the government stands up and says no you've got to go different for your question we have to process allegations in our complaint we have unconstitutional retroactivity questions that folks along with judge when is identified of the factual case here and i'm perplexed why the government argue we waived these the district court said no jurisdiction i can't appeal a decision that the district didn't make and so i do not think we waive those if you look at pages five and seven of the record you'll see were made in the complaint and and i see my time's up if  some up for this court to find that there is no judicial review over any challenge it's constitutional or otherwise to a visa revocation is is i