jurisdiction to consider the immigration judges denial of the adjustment of status and voluntary departure the second issue before the court is whether the immigration judge was correct in denying the asylum withholding of them level and relief under the irrespective of that bar the court retains jurisdiction over any constitutional claims and any legal issues that are raised this is basically what the real id act of two thousand and five also states it acknowledges the fact that a court does not have jurisdiction over discretionary findings but it carves out an exception for any matters that are raising constitutional issues or legal claims and what are the constitutional issues or i don't believe  constitutional issues in this case or honor but i definitely think that there is a legal claim the immigration judge in denying the adjustment the only others factor that she looked at was the activities that mr g i think inherently in her decision in denying the adjustment in her discretion she had to play the undisputed facts of the case to the law and she used that legal determination to support her discretionary finding that he w just another way of challenging the discretionary determination which is impermissible i don't believe so your honor because ultimately it is a factual analysis and a factual analysis applied to the a is a non discretionary matter persecutor and the case law applies these facts and difference in your nails and it goes beyond just being a discretionary matter now i think the same argument can be made with respect to the contrary departure a legal determination to support her discretionary finding its authority are you relied upon to support your argument that application of the law to the facts is out far more  he provided information against the l c t to his brother and the state department recognizes that the l c t is a terrorist organization at some point we don't have any set timeframe as to when it happened but at some point these two ltd training camps were bombed he was questioned about this during his hearing and he couldn't say concretely that the government bombed the two ulti t e training  said he was not helping the terrorist organization he was working with the government to stop the terrorists from potentially killing innocent civilians and doing whatever it was that argument m to address the burden of proof following the standard of review here counsel suggested that the standard was a clear and convincing standard that the government had to meet with regard to the persecutor issue  however that may be true in the case for the finding of the portability is based on the persecutor status but in the case such as this that's not this that's not the burden of proof or the standard in a case where there is some have been in the record that an record there are several potations in there regarding his his belief at that time that he had persecuted others he states that he was appointed by the un p s an informant he states that he himself appointed agents to obtain the relevant information and that he informed the defense department of the location of tamiya would be easy and that the defense depart scheduled for a quote swift attack that they destroyed two villages over one hundred to two hundred people were dead including quote a few terrorists he states that he felt very bad because he was working for the government at that time and he goes on to say that he was a very active member of the un p and that judge looked at this at the situation in trail i got the time and looked at the information from the state department reports and saw that there was information that said that both sides in this conflict were involved in abus any argument such as or even the one you raised your honor that conduct is just that this was just proper conduct in defense of the of our government at the time that wasn't persuasive to the immigration judge based on the information that  question has to do with actions by our own country which seem fairly analogous to me i don't know if you recall the one nine hundred ninety eight president clinton ordered the bombing and he got that information from people who were spies in the country there and he would be carted that back to the cia who informed president clinton about that so that they we the united states of however i think what happened in this case was the immigration judge was looking at the particular situation and try half the time and then the evidence of widespread abuse from both sides then i think it would perhaps absolve individuals from providing their government with information no matter how bad that government was considered to be used for for instance there are a couple of cases dealing with support for the nazi government you know and and nine hundred forty s where one case involving a newspaper editor who more in collaboration with the nazis to publish anti jewish articles and information tamil people or whether they're actually tamil tigers person tory act that is the indiscriminate targeting of what he admits to almost two hundred individual civilian individuals civilians and not terrorists  immigration judge made a decision based on the information record that his assistance or participation in that in that particular act was it wasn't sufficient to you constitute assisting or participating persecution which is somewhat similar to this case in that it down with a philippine intelligence officer under the marcos regime was giving information to the martha's regime which was then being used against the opponents of that regime if you  regard to the adjustment status issue you counsel stated that the only factor that was considered by the immigration judge was the persecutor status of the of the alien but that's not entirely true the record will show that the certain petitions are filed an individual is still eligible to adjust his status so if the manner of entry had been the only issue in this case the immigration judge would have been able to grant the adjustment in her discretion so  that was a very very minor factor which doesn't even placed on much attention to the main focus really was the activities his activities against the l t t v and finally with respect to the  national origin or political belief in a case like this how do you take how do you get the political belief out of the equator how do you get the political belief aren't the actions can it be argued that the actions are based on political belief the actions of your client yes it could be argued that it was based on  you're right even his actions were based on the fact that he supported the government and the government was had a certain political mindset which the terrorists opposed so i'm not sure there is a way to get the political belief