and i think i haven't researched the history but originally all of the authority over removals and adjudications and the like was consolidated in the department of j correct yesterday and then when the division occurred and the d h s s then became the agency that has the prosecutorial discretion d o j then became in effect counsel for the d h s s in the legal proceedings but it's a client relationship so bizarre i understand the board is saying we reopen and the agency educated it as a motion to reconsider in this case i believe agencies made the same mistake where he really hot filed a timely statutory motion to reopen with new evidence including an approved by one thirty and showing that he to be exercising discretion are saying we can't do it without allowed to do it at some point as they seem to be saying we're not allowed to right and if they're not allowed to do it as a as a statutory matter then masson correct me if that position they're taking yes because it is a little hard to understand what they're really saying they're right but to the extent that jurisdiction is a question of at step one of whether or not the statute is clear whether grant or deny we also like this court to consider the merits of mr singh's asylum appeal in this case the board incorporated the ideas decision and also added its own reasoning the i j a found his testimony consistent on the merits but the board relied on three alleg inconsistency is on the merits for its adverse credibility finding i'd like to address these three erroneous findings most significant be the board erred as a matter of law in dismissing his corroborating evidence on page three of their decision to have a paragraph with their reasoning in denying on the merits and they say that they dismissed his father's two affidavits as inconsistent and impossible without any for the discussion however a review of the two affidavits the first ten ninety five and the second is on page eight ninety eight showed that they are not inconsistent the second is merely an elaboration of points raised in the first and in no way is precluded by any of the statements in the first therefore the basis to dismiss that is as incredible notably because this conclusion is critical to the board's decision and we believe that the court can reverse and remember he is on this basis alone because under generally the court cannot assume the world would have come to the same conclusion and pursuing this with you seem to be providing the us the nation that may dress or concerns as we explained in our recent decision matter of your e we have long been of the view that administratively final exclusion deeper taishan or removal proceedings should not be reopened for matters over which neither the immigration judge nor the board has jurisdiction so you're saying ok they have the authority to reopen but if the relief that is being sought is beyond the board's jurisdiction they won't as a matter of their institutional discretion reopen because the jurisdiction to grant relief is with the with the chairs and v h s is in a position not only to make  he never knew that even place since exclusion proceedings so this flies in the face of the charging document which told him that you is in place and exclusion proceedings and gave him the date and time of his exclusion stated he could read and write english when you arrived in the united states such as nothing prevented them from reading the charging document that was provided to him at the airport interview what are you reading from when and how many times the police came through why or why is that material because it goes to the not follow any bar complaints against and being the reason why the us not only had a boss when he she was goes back to the fact that he can read english he admitted being provided that asylum application that the attorney prepared and he didn't read it that we get your materials which may have been filed long time ago about six weeks before the calendar and we work those heavily development of our own rulings the same thing applies to making sure that the has the relevant information before as to a status may be material to our analysis not just for spying on oral argument but at a time when was the case so the message should be is a common sense one and maybe we need a rule or some publication but it seems common sense that there's a material and surely material development in the record or the circumstances we need to side the reason to understand that you were i think taking the position that the issue was not for us anymore and if so they should have had a chance for a spot and i don't know what you're saying that position still to this day i left edition or not give us information should be accurate information yes ron i apologize sure thank you thank you question and it seems that perhaps the real reason you don't want to go ask the agencies because the agency would consider the likelihood of so yes as particularly this point for example presumably th and i would say also that the board's decision you are using correct because even the disc of this court has found that the board can have a policy of blanket denials without individual consideration of the merits of an application especially when there's a counsel before that applications adjudicated he filed after many years of it just remaining pending he finally went to second counsel and said i'd like to file in the second asylum application as part of that asylum application in the declaration he explained he put for the correct facts on his entry his birth date his name and he explained the prior council meeting errors and he did all of this before effectively as a timely retraction before he was interviewed on either read those papers my understanding from your briefing was that he'd taken the position that he couldn't read the papers and opposing counsel just given you a citation to a record which i look at it at three o seven not just that he had studied english in india but that he but