to reconsider its earlier decision of april seventh two thousand and fifteen your honor in a motion to reconsider the petitioners raised one issue of material fact and for issues of law that we allege were overlooked or improperly addressed by the board in its april seventh twenty fifteen decision but before getting into those your honor i think that the crux of this case really turns on what exactly is the proper scope of the arguments that are raised on a motion to reconsider as  is well aware has addressed and prior a decision the regulation the statute limits a motion to reconsider essentially to pointing to material errors affecting law in the underlying decision what happens in a case such as this the board may then turn around and reject such a filing by arguing that every issue has already been raised every show has already been considered the problem is that sets up an impossible standard we cannot point to errors and things that were overlooked in a prior decision without rehashing some of the earlier arguments there is you why it's such an impossible why couldn't you just have filed a petition for review from the initial decision in which you among other things said the board overlooked this or the board failed to appreciate that evidence seems like there's every opportunity to raise that in a direct titian for review rather than a motion to reconsider yes your honor and that should have been done in this case it was due to an oversight that the petition for a b was not filed at the same time as a motion to reconsider but regardless you're on it but i understand that but it doesn't mean that the scope of the motion to reconsider is any broader it's like this court denies editions for rehearing all the time and we don't usually say anything except the petition for rehearing is denied period correct is what we've had to say about the case yes in the opinion correct your honor but in cases such as this one where the motion to reconsider raises deficiencies and things that were looked in the underlying decision that's always going to be true that would be when why would you bother to file a motion for to reconsider if you didn't think that there were deficiencies and things that were overlooked in the original decision exactly your honor i agree that that sort of should help destroy all distinctions between motions to reconsider and just straight forward petitions for review your honor the motion to reconsider exists as a vehicle and the regulation prescribed i was supposed to work now for a motion to reconsider to properly exist it has to be able to address some of the things that were previously brought up what happens in a case such as this is of when the board denies a motion to reconsider does fill in a cursory manner saying this has all been raised and we've already addressed it but in this particular case a number of the arguments that were raised in the motion to reconsider addressed matters that were brought up for the first time in the april seven decision so it's not something that was properly brought up previously it's not something that was already addressed now in the opposite hand we can't bring up completely new arguments because we would have been waived so that's where we have to strike a narrow balance with this motion did it is address the april seventh decision and pointed to the things that the board overlooked in that decision so while a petition for review would have been ideal and it should have been filed but in this case the motion to reconsider still has to have some utility because it does exist the board has some law about the scope of motion you know did they discuss and leslie you know different than a motion to reopen a motion to reconsider and neither one of them is supposed to be just a late opportunity to file a petition for review you know the immigration system is complicated enough as it is but it needs to follow certain time requirements just like all other  honor and this is not a case where we're trying to attack the i judge decision through one leader filed a motion to reconsider we are sticking our arguments to the april seven decision by the board where for example one of the errors of fact while the error a fact allege is that the board decision reaches a factual conclusion that the i j a never reach which is that there was no evidence that the police involved area who continued to look for the petitioner were in fact the testimony below indicated that the la witness victor pasok had been traveling back and forth regularly almost every year he had regularly met with a son and when he met him so with a petition or sign and when he met with a petitioner signed he was told that the police were still looking for them but that was very vague to me at least what i was able to find in the briefs here i couldn't find any place that was pinned down you know i met with the sun on this date or i met with the sun on that date anything past two thousand and seven or so that's correct your honor but there is i don't see why any board would be abusing it's just a question to say that's just not enough the problem your honor is that the board made that finding in the first instance on the appeal when it hadn't been brought up so they're conducting some fact finding exercise which in this case is not supported by the record there is ambiguity your honor is correct about when the meeting took place but that ambiguity is insufficient to support their finding that there is no evidence that the police continue to look now as far as matters of law that were raised in the motion to reconsider your honor one of the things that was completely overlooked is the failure to assign the adjudication of the motion to a three member panel the board did address the failure chair was nice totally and i mean the board has indicated when it's going to do that that we had some cases about that back when the board started using single members more frequently but it's very much up to the board to decide how a particular case should be handled and i will say the single members are doing a much better job now than they once were and actually giving a reasoned explanation for why they have done whatever it is they've done i agree with your honored reasoned explanation here that somewhere back here your honor in this particular case the issue is that they gave no explanation whatsoever they did address the failure to assign the original appeal to a three member panel and it was a cursory finding that we didn't have to do that i mean they they just say we don't think this qualifies  s i'm surprised that you think they need to say more than that your honor in this case they didn't even say that regarding the assignment of the motion itself to a three member panel for review that's a never do we think they should be like our port having to say well believe it should i think that the board has a responsibility to at least acknowledge that or read that part of the motion and say we just don't we won't do it do you think any time the court says you know we're we're going to discuss the first three points that you've made because we particular case regarding the request that the motion itself be adjudicated by a panel they did not even do that they made no reference to it whatsoever they only made a reference to the underlying appeal your honor another point of law that was raised in the motion to reconsider was to boards and correct application of some of the precedent from the score instead i called the holder and baker gonzales the baker oks was one that was brought up in the decision itself from april that was not something that was previously addressed because it was never up on the on the case below so the motion to reconsider properly raised an issue of law by pointing to the way in which the board had applied this precedent that is not something that was previously brought up but the motion to reconsider is a proper venue to raise that argument it's not a completely new legal argument it is drawing the board's attention to a mistake that it made in his decision which i think is the correct scope of the motion to reconsider and finally your honor the final are of law that we alleged was in the motion to reconsider that the order in correctly weighed the evidence regarding whether the petitioners would face future persecution and why don't we have jurisdiction over that we have rejected countless times reconsider does not evidence that they considered some of these arguments regarding that particular problem and it's just cordesman is very clear in the actual panel in cruise mohajir the board doesn't have to write a second decisions repeating the good morning may it please the court my name is jennifer singer and i represent the united states attorney general the respondent in this matter the only question before this court is whether petitioners in their motion to reconsider identified an error of law or an error of fact in the board's earlier decision denying their application for asylum withholding of a move on capital action and the short answer is no the motion to reconsider did not identify any error or error of fact while the motion is couched in terms of legal error and that the board mischaracterized the facts or overlooked something the essence of the petitioners arguments is that take aim at the boards the merits of the board's findings regarding past persecution eligibility for asylum and clear probability of future persecution if petitioner wanted to mount an argument merits of the board's underlying decisions petitioner should have filed a petition for view with this court and he did not or they did not he can't now get back to our review of the merits through a motion to reconsider but titian or spent much of its time up here claiming that his motion did identify errors of fact in law but just because you say error  the magic words that the board misapplied precedent doesn't necessarily make it so and points to which he does identify are not actual errors whatsoever i have the government's brief addresses all the errors the petitioner raises in his brief and his motion to reconsider i can go into those specifically i think the brief covers a pretty thoroughly unless the court has additional questions i don't really have much to add other than the fact that have raised all his arguments in a petition for a view and he did not so what do you think the proper disposition is it just in for review from the denial of the motion to reconsider is i'm sorry i said that again what the government's view of the proper disposition of this petition for review before us or these petitions for review which are from the board's denial of the motion to reconsider that the bar that the court should raise merits argument the court doesn't have jurisdiction to review those because there was no timely fashion petition or review filed from the merits of the board's underlying decision so the government asked the court firm the board's denial of the motion to reconsider and the identity and i thank you for your time or honors and that's the case people all right thank you very much thanks to both counsel take the case under advisement of the court will be in recess