lengthy procedural history we have two principal arguments to make in in this petition for review before you want to be sure what room the arguing about because as i understand it you didn't contest things primarily that the fabrication attributed to a man shouldn't harm the children because they didn't intend to miss attorneys for the government have opposed that we are trying to we were trying to work out a solution with government attorneys and they opposed it on what grounds i believe it has something to do with the new administration's policies on fraud i justify not to be frivolous well i have been looking at it looking at the judge's order specifically last page of the of the judge's decision i dated october third two thousand and eleven it sa other respondents in this case they were not as was in fact the judge actually found that the children had been pressured into submitting the father's false statement along with their five eighty nine which actually testimony however the children were not actually included in the original application they filed their own separate asylum applications in two thousand while you when you use the word children understand they are the children but of the two people in this case  seven at the time they entered sweden they were seven and i think at the time they left to even came to the united states they were seven and eight when the father first submitted his asylum application in one thousand nine hundred eight they were fifteen and sixteen the time of the pressure and you said that when the children were pro he asked what right had children yes they were seventeen and eighteen at the time they filed their individual asylum applications and the father at that point told them that they had to include his unsigned declaration because if they didn't it would harm the interests of the whole family so it were they they in effect adopted his life alternatif back well they when it came to the testimony the daughter army actually attempted to make corrections she she thought it was a she thought that these were mistakes and she did attempt to make corrections at the time of her testimony and i believe the sun also made some rough estimates she received any benefit from the lies from before before she made the corrections  don't think so i don't think i don't think she had actually gotten a work permit in fact she had actually been detained because she had been ordered in absentia and she later filed a motion to reopen her ca testimony caught some of these problems and attempted to make corrections that's my understanding just a lot well she relied on other lies that were not correct when when the application was filed it's a fair inference i think that the lies of the father will for the benefit of the family who intended that way and the family accept those lies and sought to benefit from it and then when those lies just that the fact that ermey interact did make corrections during the hearing but only after she realized that they had caught up with her i think that she was going to fuse about the whole thing my understanding  and i think we just have her written testimony during the hearing on that issue with were guard i would just like to speak for another thirty seconds if you go to the father we just would like to argue that he is still prospectively eligible for convention against torture relief he continues to support the bangladesh some so much tantric da party which is an opposition party in bangladesh so our position is despite the fabricated story in the one nine hundred ninety s he was persecuted in the seventy's and eighty's and he does continue to support the opposition and opposition party at this point i would like to stop the clock and preserve freezer from  asylum claim for twelve years through the board and all the way up to this court where they were eventually successful on that claim but the only thing currently before the court right now are a mine who's the father and his wife menas applications for withholding  removal and convention against torture protection and ermes application for cancellation of removal and shots i guess requests for voluntary departure of the court the board and the i j a denied surats requests for voluntary departure and ermes requests for cancellation of removal on the catch all provision of the good moral character requirement which this court lacks jurisdiction to review it's held that that's a purely discretionary determination so that's something the court doesn't really even have jurisdiction to consider at this point turning to a man and his before you leave that that means that we can't touch  application of already and sure i must dismiss them for lack of jurisdiction that's correct it's with us yes as to amman and me to substantial evidence in this case supports the agency's adverse credibility determination amman's false testimony under oath and submission of fraudulent documents in support of his original asylum application involved both deliberate fabrication does of incidents and torture unbanked of of incidents of torture in bangladesh in the one nine hundred ninety s when he was already living in the united states and it completely fabricated story about his entry into the united states and also had the fact that the family had resettled in sweden for three years before coming to the united states  basically that destroyed his credibility on all future claims for withholding and and also with can convention against torture protection obviously an adverse credibility finding does not render his application is not dispositive for his requests for cat protection however there they have not pointed to any evidence outside that testimony that establishes the likelihood of torture and bangladesh and i think specific in his testimony no actually he felt even credibly establish what political party he was a member of he had a generalized fear if you believe his testimony well he believed he's going to be targeted either as a member of this political party called know he did say that he was detained for twenty eight days and as a result of his political activity he said he was hit or something like that correct correct but basically his his long pursuit of a frivolous claim that was not even discovered it was actually the court the i j a that discovered this claim by looking at all the documents had to have been followed all the applications that had been followed in this case and finally noticing a discrepancy in among the dates of entries and then the agency had or d h just had to spend time and resources uncovering this fraud and only then when they were confronted with actual evidence that they entered the united states in one thousand nine hundred one did they even and then with mina she was the one that she was present in october two thousand and four when her husband did give the false testimony both about their entry and about his persecution in the one nine bangladesh and she was silent during her husband's testimony even though she was not prevented from testifying and she could have testified if she wanted to and she actually eventually received a grant of asylum based on this fault testimony  and had we known that we would have taken a totally different approach had we known that the family had actually lived in sweden and that there was an issue a firmer settlement we would have structured the case in an entirely different way asking for withholding and perhaps convention against torture and never would we have approached i don't i have little doubt you would have done that counsel but we have the record we have and the reality is that there's very very strong evidence here that there were just a tissue of lies the fact that he did lie about his refugee status in sweden have had the whole family got refugee status in sweden and he never told us about that and it came out in the courtroom in light of that fact there's still some argument to be made that he's still eligible for relief under the convention against torture if and what evidence that what he talked about before was shown to be a lie so what do we believe well what is the eyes is true that he lied about many things that doesn't mean that he wasn't tortured in the seventy's in bangladesh if you lies about ninety five percent of things are we supposed to presume that he didn't lie about the other five percent well the convention against torture is not a discretionary relief if someone's going to be tortured in their home country but you have to believe that they were and that's the problem and will be and originally when he was given refugee status in sweden apparently the swedish authorities believed it and this court doesn't bind us the other thing to correct the fraud she tried to tell the truth there will be true but if we have no jurisdiction we can't get into i think you do have jurisdiction i've argued several cases in this court where it was remanded for the relief of cancellation of removal it may can't be have a removal cancelled and the brother can't have his voluntary departure request honored what's there to adjudicate well we can adjudicate that finding a bad ball character ca we take up the substance finding and say there's no basis to it can we do that i believe so i believe you can remand but that means we have jurisdiction and it's very significant and very significant in armies case in particular because i agree with you but that means we have jurisdiction can't we can't touch the finding a bad bargain character unless you have jurisdiction to do that is there heaviest jurisdiction is there review jurisdiction what  do we have i beg to disagree with you that i think that you can ask a question you can't disagree with me as a matter of law remanded for finding a voluntary departure and give me the